Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jngse

Effective evaluation of shale gas reservoirs by means of an integrated T

approach to petrophysics and geomechanics for the optimization of
hydraulic fracturing: A case study of the Permian Roseneath and Murteree
Shale Gas reservoirs, Cooper Basin, Australia
Omer Iqbala, Maqsood Ahmada,∗, Askury abd Kadirb
a
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Malaysia
b
Department of Petroleum Geoscience, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Malaysia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Brittleness and in-situ stress states are known critical indicators for screening prospected layers during hydraulic
Petrophysical and mineral model fracturing in unconventional reservoirs. Brittleness can be inferred from mechanical parameters and miner-
Geomechanical model alogical data, primarily using empirical relations, although an incomplete dataset limits their use. Therefore, a
Brittleness index dataset with a systematic framework was designed based on well logs, and details core data spudded in the
Hydraulic fracturing
Permian Roseneath and Murteree shales from the Cooper Basin, Australia. Petrophysical and geomechanical
Shale gas
Sweet spots
models were designed to indicate shale mineralogy, total organic richness, porosity, in-situ stress conditions,
brittleness index, pore pressure, and fracture pressure gradient. After a review of various definitions of brit-
tleness index (BI) in recent literature, it will be argued that the definition of a brittleness index is with reference
to either elastic parameters, mineralogical composition, or strength parameters. Consequently, a higher brit-
tleness index is assigned to quartz and siderite rich rocks than to clay, organic matter, and porosity rich rocks.
Some recent definitions of BI are therefore useful for indicating rock types, but brittle/ductile behavior is not
necessarily any indicator of brittle/ductile failure during stimulation. It is therefore proposed that an accurate BI
must be incorporated into a geomechanical model. This new model will comprise the following properties:
elastic and strength parameters, in-situ stress state, fracture pressure gradient, and pore pressure. Such an in-
tegrated model can be used to find 1) Fracture barriers (the layers hindering fracture growth); 2) Potential layers
that enhance fracture growth, and; 3) Direction of induced fractures on the bases of the stress regime.

1. Introduction
Over the past decades, depletion in conventional reservoirs has led
to unconventional reservoirs being focused upon for various aspects of
exploitation. Unconventional reservoirs are characterized by ultra-low
matrix permeability and are remarkably different to conventional re-
servoirs in terms of their geology, mechanical, and petrophysical
properties (Dewhurst et al., 2015). The success of commercial produc-
tion from these reservoirs depends upon both natural and artificial
fractures (Nordeng, 2009). Moreover, field experience demonstrates
that all fracturing targets cannot yield commercial production during
hydraulic fracturing. Consequently, the identification of candidates for
prospected fracturing is necessary before any stimulation treatment
commences (King, 2010; Zhou et al., 2015).
The layers with brittle characteristics are considered prospected for
fracturing. Brittle layers are easier for fracturing than ductile layers in
shale gas reservoirs because ductile rock tends to heal both natural and
artificial fractures (Guo et al., 2015). Brittle and ductile layers can be
located by knowing brittleness index of reservoirs, which is generally
used in the industry as an indicator of perforation locations during the
hydraulic fracturing process (Lai et al., 2015). High brittleness is at-
tributed to brittle rock, which means that there is a high probability of
there being a large stimulated reservoir volume for gas recovery during
the fracturing (Sondergeld et al., 2010). It is of the utmost importance
to understand the parameters directly affecting the development of
unconventional reservoirs if there is to be better design of fracturing
treatment (King, 2010; Boulis et al., 2013). Contrarily, field experience
demonstrates that the selection of fracturing stages by dividing well
bore equally into zones may lead to remarkably different production
performances in the same formation. It has been observed that similar

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: maqsood.ahmad@utp.edu.my (M. Ahmad).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2018.07.017
Received 6 March 2018; Received in revised form 29 May 2018; Accepted 17 July 2018
Available online 29 July 2018
1875-5100/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
O. Iqbal et al.
treatment efforts on the same formation may also yield remarkably
different production performances due to the heterogeneity of re-
servoirs (Daniels et al., 2007). Heterogeneity of the reservoir must
therefore be considered in terms of geomechanical and flow properties,
to identify the prospected/sweet spots (Jahandideh and Jafarpour,
2016). Therefore, improvements in shale gas production are required
through better understanding and characterization of reservoir prop-
erties in terms of their geomechanical and petrophysical attributes,
specifically the distribution of rock brittleness and in-situ stress con-
ditions are particularly important factors here; they are, in fact, the
main determinant for the selection of prospected layers in reservoirs.
Brittleness/fracability are terms used to denote rock behavior;
particularly to identify prospected fracturing candidates for stimulation
in low-permeability reservoirs (Rickman et al., 2008). Many researchers
have attempted to define brittleness, but there is no universal definition
taken as a standard. Brittleness can be calculated using the following
methods: stress-strain curves from multistage triaxial measurements;
the ratio of elastic strain and total strain; the ratio of compressive
strength to tensile strength; the angle of friction; Brinell hardness; and
several empirical relations (Hucka and Das, 1974; Altindag, 2003;
Heidari et al., 2014; Zhou et al., 2015). From a geomechanical per-
spective, brittleness is related to Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio.
Young's modulus is a ratio of stress to strain, while Poisson's ratio is a
ratio of transverse to axial strain, following Hook's law. These elastic
parameters measure rock's ability to fail under stress (Poisson's ratio)
and maintain fracture (Young's modulus). The combination of these two
vital parameters is the main determinant of rock brittleness (Rickman
et al., 2008). From a mineralogical perspective, there are different
points of view in the literature. While Jarvie et al. (2007) concluded
that quartz is the most brittle mineral; Wang and Julia (2009) reported
that quartz and dolomite are more brittle than organic matter and clay.
Jin et al. (2014) argued that quartz and all carbonate minerals are
brittle minerals, and Rybacki et al., 2016 deduced that quartz is brittle,
while carbonate is partially a brittle mineral. Several studies indicated
that brittle rock has a higher Young's modulus and lower Poisson's ratio
because of the presence of a high amount of quartz and carbonate
minerals. This brittle behavior tends to fracture rapidly, and induced
fractures remain stable after treatment (King, 2010). On the contrary,
ductile rock, with its high clay content, is less friendly to fracturing and
to healing fractures after treatment. Ductile rock needs more energy/
fracturing pressure to break, resulting in short fractures, which are
undesirable and provide less contact with formation, in addition to
needing more proppant. From a petrophysical point of view, rock
brittleness is affected by porosity and organic richness (Wang and Julia,
2009). This refers to the concept that brittle rock failing under low
strain and becoming more porous sees an increase in its strain rate. This
increase deflects rock from brittle to ductile formations (Fjar et al.,
2008). Moreover, a high TOC (total organic content) is associated with
a higher clay content. Higher clay content makes rock ductile; meaning
that it is less prone to fractures and less resistant to proppant embed-
ment (Wang and Julia, 2009). Unfortunately, brittleness estimations
from laboratories on core samples are not feasible due to the problem of
obtaining intact samples and due to expense. Brittleness estimation
using geophysical wire-line logs to estimate elastic parameters and
mineralogy are considered more applicable because obtaining in-
formation is easier using such methods than by conducting extensive
laboratory tests on core. In spite of this, the laboratory tests carried out
on core samples are considered a benchmark and have been used to
calibrate geophysical wire-log data. Calibration is required because
dynamic measurements from well logs are always greater than static
measurements on core samples, because of differences in strain ampli-
tude. Several researchers have in fact measured brittleness based on
elastic properties, petrophysical properties, and strength properties
(Grieser and Bray, 2007; Jarvie et al., 2007; Rickman et al., 2008; Wang
and Julia, 2009; Herwanger and Mildren, 2015). These attempts en-
joyed a certain degree of success, but are now known to have some
35
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58
limitations. For recently, several researchers attempted to make a re-
lationship between brittleness and well logs by means of a data-driven
approach that could be universally applicable. For instance, Jin et al.
(2014) derived a relationship between brittleness and porosity. Lai
et al., 2015 developed a brittleness model using the ratio of gamma ray
to photoelectric effect (GR/Pe), concluding that brittleness can be de-
rived using well logs because Pe log can be used to identify brittle
quartz mineral. Shi et al., 2017 estimated brittleness using an artificial
neural network. Li et al., 2017 estimated brittleness based on a statis-
tical damage model by evaluating damage during the loading process.
The limitations of such correlations and novel methods were due to
their success only for typical shale formations, not for other typical
shale formations, where the applicability of these methods needed more
verification. In addition, the lack of availability of complete data for
each well further restricted the use of these methods. Furthermore, it is
required to use a proper definition of brittleness index, specifically
brittleness based on mineralogy, where quartz and carbonate must be
treated as a brittle mineral and the effect of porosity and organic matter
on brittleness index must be considered to select prospected layers for
fracturing. There are certain examples known to assert the importance
of brittleness for the optimization of hydraulic fracturing treatment.
One example is from the BP CGU 13-17H horizontal well located in
Carthage field, Panola County, Texas. In this case, there was undesir-
able production outcome when selecting fracturing candidates (ductile
areas) based on equally spaced intervals (every 110 ft) by assuming
homogeneous properties of the reservoir (Buller et al., 2010). Another
example is from Longmaxi black shale in South China, where fracturing
candidates were selected based on the brittleness of the reservoir. In
this case there was extensive initiation and propagation of fractures
observed in brittle areas, with higher production yielded through
fracture tracing and micro-seismic monitoring (Li et al., 2013). In re-
cent years, the significance of brittleness on fracturing efficiency has
been recognized and suggested to select fracturing stages (Li et al.,
2013). However, brittleness alone, nevertheless, is not sufficient by it-
self to select prospected layers, magnitude, and the direction of in-situ
stresses, which are also required to locate fracture barriers and pros-
pected/potential brittle layers (Jacobi et al., 2009). Minimum hor-
izontal stress is very important in designing fracturing treatments
(Willis et al., 2005; Wright et al., 1999) because induced fractures are
not only propagated perpendicular to the minimum horizontal stress,
but also because this stress attempts to close the fracture itself (Hubbert
and Willis, 1957). Meanwhile, there are three types of stress regimes;
normal faulting, strike-slip faulting, and the reverse faulting stress re-
gime which affect the direction and propagation of fractures (Anderson,
1951). As brittleness and in-situ earth stresses are the most important
parameters during fracturing process, therefore they must be estimated
accurately for better understanding of reservoir potential for fracturing.
There are two main challenges encountered during evaluation of
shale gas reservoirs. First, estimation of reservoir properties with lim-
ited data at reservoir temperature and pressure conditions, because
already proposed correlations are not applicable for all shale gas re-
servoirs due to difference in mineralogy, lithology and environment of
deposition of reservoir. Secondly, the estimation of consistent volume
of reservoir properties from to bottom of reservoir to get complete
image of reservoir for better completion and production of reservoir.
For this purpose, the systematic workflow has been established to es-
timate the reservoir properties at reservoir temperature and pressure
conditions using geophysical wire-line logs and core data for Roseneath
and Murteree shale formations, Cooper Basin, Australia. The practical
application of reservoir properties to recommend the design of hy-
draulic fracturing through the identification of fracture barriers capable
of stopping the propagation of fractures and prospected/potential
layers that are brittle enough to initiate and propagate fractures. The
motivation behind this work, then, is to include rock brittleness and in-
situ earth stresses, because with its effect on pressures required to break
rock, brittleness is a key factor in any design consideration.
O. Iqbal et al.
Fig. 1. Geological summary of Cooper Basin (PIRSA, 2007). Arrows indicated the studied area.
1.1. Geology of the Cooper Basin
The area chosen for this study lies in the Cooper Basin (Fig. 1),
South Australia. The Cooper Basin is regarded as the most prospective
basin in Australia for shale gas reservoirs. The area is prolific with
onshore oil and gas. Natural gas (with small liquids) has been produced
there since 1963 (Hall et al., 2016). The basin has potential for both
conventional and unconventional reservoirs. The most prolific intervals
with hydrocarbons are located within the Late Paleozoic Gidgeapla
Group (Fig. 1).
After successful recovery of natural gas from Moomba 191 in the
form of shale gas reservoirs by the Santos company, exploration from
these reservoirs has been expanded and various other companies started
36
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58
production in Cooper basin; Beach energy, Senex, Drill search, and
Strike Energy with other joint ventures (Jadoon, 2016). This expansive
exploration and production in the basin evinces the presence of a sig-
nificant infrastructure. Among other troughs, most prospected troughs
prolific with unconventional oil and gas are the Nappamerri, Patch-
awara and Tenappera troughs (PIRSA, 2007). Earlier exploration was
focused on conventional clastic and carbonate reservoirs, with in-
vestigations based on conventional logs. These logs involved gamma-
rays, resistivity, neutron-density, and sonic logs with limited core
analyses (Vallee, 2013). However, formation evaluation of shale gas
reservoir requires geophysical wire-line logs with core analyses
(Jadoon, 2016). Fortunately, the complete suite of wire-line logs with
core data was made available for both the Roseneath and Murteree
O. Iqbal et al.
Table 1
Indicating use of well logs and core data (modified after Jadoon, 2016).
Properties Measured Core data Log data
Porosity Crushed rock He Density (mostly)
porosimetry
TOC (total organic carbon) Rock Evaluation GR, resistivity, sonic
(Passey approach)
Mineral contents XRD, FESEM, Thin Density, sonic, neutron,
section PE, GR
Elastic properties UCS Sonic and density
Failure Parameters Triaxial Compression Correlation with
tests, Mohr circle porosity
In-situ stress, fracturing LOT, well completion Density, sonic
pressure, Brittleness reports
Index
formations, provided by the DSD (Department of State Development).
The Roseneath and Murteree shale, both proven shale gas re-
servoirs, were evaluated through the integration of well logs and core
data represented in Table 1. The following parameters obtained
through core-log integration were matched with each other to achieve a
consistent volume of properties from top to bottom of intervals. The
petrophysical properties included total porosity from density logs, total
organic matter from pyrolysis and logs, mineralogy from powder X-ray
diffraction (XRD), Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy
(FESM), thin section analysis and well logs to make mineral model.
Geomechanical properties includes elastic, strength and failure para-
meters, and in-situ earth stresses. Brittleness index and fracturing
pressures were measured through the calibration of core-logs and are
presented in this study.
The aims of this study are: 1) the measurement of petrophysical and
geomechanical properties through core-log integration; 2) the ex-
ploration of the relationships between brittleness index and other pet-
rophysical and geomechanical properties; 3) the identification of frac-
ture barriers and prospected layers for hydraulic fracturing and
validation through core data; 4) the development of simplistic work-
flow with correlations capable of being used with an absence of core
data, particularly in the cases of the Roseneath and Murteree forma-
tions.
2. Methodology
This is an integrated study of geophysical wire-line logs and drill
core data. The following data were available for current study, in-
cluding wire-reline logs sonic (DT), density (Rhob), Photoelectric effect
(PEF), neutron (NPHI), resistivity (MSFL, LLS, and LLD), gamma ray
(GR), and core samples collected from five wells in the Nappameri
troughs. The core samples and wire-line log data were provided by the
DSD. The wire-line log data (Log ASCII Standard-Las files) was loaded
into IP 4.3 (Interactive petrophysics) Synergy software and then in-
tegrated with core and cutting data to develop mineral modeling for the
quantification of mineral content for both the Roseneath and Murteree
shales in exploration wells. The methodology was designed through an
integration of petrophysical and geomechanical properties to locate
fracture barriers, and optimal/brittle zones that promote gas recovery.
The workflow adopted was divided into two main phases; first the
quantification of petrophysical properties and second the quantification
of geomechanical properties (Fig. 2). There are the steps involved in the
selection of fracture barriers and potential layers for hydraulic frac-
turing in the Roseneath and Murteree shale gas reservoirs.
1. Quantification of total porosity (фT), total organic matter in wt %
(TOC), and mineralogy using geophysical wire-line logs and core
data. The mineral contents are to be quantified by XRD (X-ray dif-
fraction) on core samples and visualized on FESEM images. The
continuous volume of mineral content from top to bottom is to be
37
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58
obtained using the application called “Mineral Solver”, part of the
package “Interactive Petrophysics Software” through the integration
of geophysical wire-line logs and XRD data.
2. For the purpose of calculation, elastic parameters are divided into
two halves; one being dynamic and the other static. Dynamic elastic
properties like Young's’ modulus and Poisson's ratio are to be cal-
culated using sonic and density logs. Shear slowness is to be cal-
culated using measured slowness on core samples. Whereas, static
parameters measured from unconfined compressive strength tests on
core samples. The calibration carried out between static and dy-
namic and calibrated elastic parameters were used for further ana-
lysis.
3. Brittleness index is divided into two: one is from elastic parameters
named BI_1, while the other is from mineralogy, named BI_2, BI_3,
BI_4, BI_6, and BI_7 came from combination of BI_4 and BI_6. A total
brittleness index (BI_T) is derived from an average of BI_1 and BI_7.
4. The strength and failure parameters to be included are: unconfined
compressive strength; tensile strength; cohesion and friction angle
using empirical relations developed from a correlation of measured
cohesion; and friction angle on core samples, with porosity from the
density log.
5. In-situ stress profiles are to be considered, such as vertical/over-
burden stress and maximum/minimum horizontal stress. The iden-
tification of a stress regime is to be based on stress profiles.
6. Fracturing pressure is to include; the reopening of open fractures
(Popen), the reopening of closed fractures (Pclose), and newly induced
fractures called breakdown pressure (Pb).
The selection of fracture barriers and potential zones is to be based
on petrophysical and geomechanical properties: specifically, brittleness
index, and minimum horizontal stress.
2.1. Quantification of total porosity and total organic matter (TOC)
Porosity is to be computed using a density log. As in the case of
organic rich shale, TOC has been overlooked from porosity on density
logs (Cluff, 2012). A kerogen correction, therefore, needs to be applied
to quantify porosity from a density log. Porosity was previously quan-
tified following the convention of weight percent of mineral to volume
percent density log. The following equations are used for porosity
(Krygowski, 2003).
(ρma − ρb )
φD =
(ρma − ρf ) (1)
Where
фD = Density porosity
ρma = Matrix density
ρb = Bulk density
ρf = Fluid density
Porosity correction for kerogen
φDKC = φD − (VK × φDK )
Where
фDKC = Density porosity corrected for kerogen content
фDK = Density porosity of kerogen
VK= Volume of kerogen in fraction.
Total organic content (TOC) is defined as the organic richness or
amount of organics within rock, and is recorded as a percentage (Jarvie
et al., 2007). As total organic contents define organic richness within
rock and can be accurately measured on core samples using rock pyr-
olysis, it can also be estimated using well logs. For this study, ΔlogR
O. Iqbal et al.
Fig. 2. Workflow adopted for 1-D integrated model for selection of fracture barriers and prospected/brittle layers in Roseneath and Murteree formations, Cooper
Basin, Australia.
methodology (Passey et al., 1990; Ahmad et al., 2017) is adopted to
determine total organic carbon (TOC) and then compared with TOC
based on borehole cuttings.
R ⎞
Δ log Rsonic = log 10 ⎛⎜ ⎟ + 0.02(Δt − Δtbasline )
R
⎝ baseline ⎠ (2)
TOC = (Δ log R) ∗10 (2.297 − 0.1688 ∗ LOM (3)
Where, TOC represents total organic content, R and Δt are resistivity log
and travel time from sonic log, Rbaseline and Δbaseline are normal re-
sistivity and travel time at overlay of resistivity and sonic log represent
non-source rock interval. LOM is level of organic maturity which can be
measured from vitrinite reflectance. ΔLogR is the separation between
resistivity and sonic log represent organic rich interval.
The potential drawback of this approach is an assumption that other
rock constituents cannot influence logs used. For instance, the presence
of pyrite in a significant amount can mask resistivity profile and show
low resistivity in organic-rich rocks, giving the possibility of erroneous
results for organic richness (Passey et al., 1990). For the Roseneath and
Murteree formations there is the less-no volume of pyrite, therefore,
Passey's approach can give meaningful results for a volume of TOC
(Jadoon, 2016). Since for studied formations there is a no/minimum
volume of pyrite indicated in XRD data and in mineral models, Passey's
approach can be used to obtain TOC volumes for both the Roseneath
and Murteree Formations.
2.2. Mineral modeling
A petrophysical and mineral model is necessary for the evaluation of
shale gas reservoirs. A consistent volume of each mineral, porosity,
organic richness, and other properties is required to evaluate shale gas
38
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58
reservoirs. This consistency can be achieved by the integration of XRD,
wire-line logs and geochemical data (Bust et al., 2013; Jadoon, 2016).
The mineral model can be developed using geophysical wire-line logs
and XRD using the application Mineral solver in the package “Inter-
active Petrophysics Software”. There are certain steps involved in per-
forming multiple mineral modeling of shale gas reservoirs. Firstly, re-
normalizing the XRD and TOC weight percentage so that minerals and
organic matter can be summed to 100%. After this, there is a conversion
of weight percentage to volume percentage using the equation below;
Wet volume percent = (Dry Weight %) * (1- Porosity) * (Rock Grain
Density)/ (Mineral Grain Density)
Rock grain density and porosity are used from the routine core
analysis. Porosity plays an important role in conversion, for core por-
osity is used to mitigate porosity issues related to the kerogen effect.
This conversion is executed using Mineral Solver's processing utility, in
the software package. After several iterations, the exact mineral end-
points are obtained, allowing for the correlation of the log-based mi-
neral volumes with the XRD based mineral volumes. It is anticipated
that a number of key assumptions, conditions, and potential issues will
be encountered in the process of developing these models. For example,
shale exhibiting a high GR value, and an elevated GR value in reducing
environment, is a phenomenon caused by high uranium (ppm) content,
which makes it hard to identify clays using GR logging. The second
issue in the construction of the multiple mineral models for this study is
the calculation of clay volume (VCL), for this depends upon the in-
tegrated response of input curves. For the number of input curves
greatly affects the quality of the model produced (Jadoon, 2016). Mi-
neral identification using only wire-line logging methods is ineffective,
due to the presence of clay, kerogen and small grain. The mineral model
O. Iqbal et al.
may be helpful in evaluating challenging shale gas reservoirs because
results from the models may be fine-tuned by adjusting input para-
meters to obtain a match between a core and log data (Jadoon, 2016).
The differences between the mineral model definitions (mineral end-
point) and assumptions pertaining to tool physics of lugs used may give
rise to a difference in interpretations (Ramirez et al., 2011). Each mi-
neral has its own mineral endpoint for specific logs used as input data
(e.g., 3.88 is an endpoint of siderite for density log). This mineral model
may be used as an input in the Mineral Solver application of Interactive
Petrophysics (IP), or can be used in other comparable packages like
Elan and Satmin (Jadoon, 2016). It should be noted that the shale units
in most studies consist of quartz, feldspar, carbonates, titanium-oxides,
and clay minerals. Therefore, different models were constructed for
each well separately in order to obtain the amount of each mineral
constituents accurately. IP actually combines different models into one
mineral model containing all minerals.
2.3. Determination of rock elastic parameters
2.3.1. Calculation of shear slowness
Shear slowness can be calculated using different petrophysical
correlations (Fjar et al., 2008; Iqbal et al., 2017). In the absence of shear
waves in all wells, shear slowness is estimated using correlations be-
tween static compressional and shear velocity measured on core sam-
ples as shown in Fig. 3. As S- waves slowness is usually absent from
conventional logging data.
2.3.2. Calculation of dynamic elastic parameters
Dynamic elastic parameters include Young's modulus and Poisson's
ratio calculated using sonic and density logs. Dynamic Young's modulus
(YM_DYN. in GPa) and Poisson's ratio (PR_DYN.) are obtained using
following equations (Fjar et al., 2008).
Vp2 − 2Vs2
PR _DYN . (V ) =
2(Vp2 − Vs2) (4)
Vp2 − 2Vs2
YM _DYN . (E ) =
2(Vp2 − Vs2) (5)
Where Vp represents compressional velocity in km/sec, Vs is shear
wave velocity in km/sec, and ρb is bulk density in gm/cc.
Fig. 3. Relationship between compressional velocity (Vp in km/sec) and shear
velocity (Vs in km/sec) based on core samples. Note; the equation was used to
estimate Vs from top to bottom of interval using Vp from each well.
39
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58
2.3.3. Conversion from dynamic to static elastic parameters
Dynamic measurements from well logs are always different from
static parameters from core samples. This difference is attributed to
strain amplitude, frequencies, system type, and uncertainties in mea-
surements (Fjar et al., 2008). Therefore, calibration is necessary be-
tween static and dynamic properties (Rickman et al., 2008). Fig. 4 il-
lustrates the experimental relation between static and dynamic
parameters. The equations obtained from calibration were used to es-
timate calibrated Young's modulus (YM_Cali.) and Poisson's ratio
(PR_Cali.).
2.4. Review on methods for the calculation of brittleness index
In previous decades, brittleness became a vitally important factor
for hydraulic fracturing of unconventional reservoirs, but there is no
precise concept, nor are there any methods for the calculation of brit-
tleness (Altindag, 2003). Due to the lack of any standard definition and
methods, the term brittleness has consequently been used differently for
different practical uses (Altindag, 2003). The most acceptable definition
proposed by Hucka and Das, 1974 was that fractures in brittle rock are
initiated at, or slightly beyond, yield stress. The equations used to
calculate brittleness are empirical and several concepts exist to calcu-
late brittleness (Jin et al., 2014). Brittleness is generally calculated in
two ways; one is by means of a physical measurement of rock proper-
ties. The other is to measure the energy consumption for cutting/dril-
ling a rock (Goktan and Yilmaz, 2005).
Brittleness is now calculated by what is known as the brittleness
index (Rickman et al., 2008; Sondergeld et al., 2010). The concept of
brittleness used in this study is from the point of view of petroleum
reservoir rock drilling, where the aim is to evaluate the efficiency of
reservoirs to make complex fractures during hydraulic fracturing. The
most acceptable method for industries to calculate brittleness index is
through an examination of both rock mineralogical composition and
mechanical parameters (Rickman et al., 2008; Sondergeld et al., 2010).
The mechanical parameters include Young's modulus and Poisson's
ratio. A higher Young's modulus coupled with a lower Poisson's ratio
corresponds to a more brittle rock, which is easy to break and is sus-
ceptible to complex fractures (Wang and Julia, 2009). In contrast, rock
with a high Poisson's ratio and a lower Young's modulus is more ductile
and less susceptible to complex fractures. Brittle minerals play a key
role in stimulation, increasing the interface between the reservoir and
the well bore (Jarvie et al., 2007). However, no standard criteria exist
for brittle minerals (Guo et al., 2015). Usually, quartz, feldspar, and
carbonate minerals are treated as brittle minerals, with quartz and
carbonate being considered more brittle than feldspar (Jin et al., 2014;
Wang and Julia, 2009). Some researchers, nevertheless, point out that
quartz is more brittle than carbonate, so carbonate should be treated as
only partially brittle (Rybacki et al., 2016). In fact, previous studies
showed that quartz and carbonate are critical and favorable for both
natural and induced fractures during hydraulic fracturing (Wang and
Julia, 2009). The higher magnitude of brittleness index makes rock
brittle and suitable for fracturing (Goktan and Yilmaz, 2005).
There are several methods for calculating brittleness index (Guo
et al., 2015). In industry, two approaches exist (Wang and Julia, 2009).
One method is to calculate brittleness index is by using mechanical
parameters, including Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio (Guo et al.,
2015).
100(YM . Cali . − YM _ Calimin ) 100(PR _ Cali − PR _ Calimax )
(YM _ Calimax − YM _ Calimin )
+ (PR _ Calimin − PR _ Calimax )
BI _1 =
2 (6)
Where YM_Cali is calibrated Young's modulus (GPa) and PR-Cali is
calibrated Poisson's ratio, YM_cali.min and YM_Cali.max represent the
minimum and maximum Young's modulus. Similarly, PR_Cali.min and
PR_Cali.max are alternatively the minimum and maximum Poisson's
ratio (Guo et al., 2015). Normalization of these two elastic parameters
O. Iqbal et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58

Fig. 4. Calibration between dynamic-static

elastic parameters, the relations indicated
the that static parameter is far less than
dynamic parameter that could be due to
difference in strain amplitude. YM_core
(static young's modulus), YM_DYN
(Dynamic young's modulus), PR_core (static
Poisson's ratio), PR_DYN (Dynamic Poisson's
ratio). Note; the relations were used to find
calibrated elastic parameters.

Fig. 5. Correlation between failure para-

meters and porosity with general concept
that cohesion and failure parameter de-
creased with an increase in porosity. Note;
the failure parameters measured on core
samples from triaxial compression tests and
porosity from density log. Obtained relation
used to find consistent volume of failure
parameters.

Table 2 Julia, 2009; Jin et al., 2014; Alzahabi and Bateman, 2015; Rybacki
Key information for the petrophysical properties of the Roseneath formation. et al., 2016).
Well name Avg ФT Avg Avg Clay Avg Quartz Avg Q
(fraction) TOC (fraction) (fraction) Carbonates BI _2 = 100
Q + Car + Clay (7)
(wt%) (fraction)

Encounter 1 0.07 1.38 0.55 0.36 0.06

Q + Dol
BI _3 = 100
Moonta 0.03 3.85 0.54 0.34 0.04 Q + Dol + Cal + TOC + Clay (8)
Holdfast 1 0.08 1.73 0.49 0.38 0.07
KINGSTON 0.06 2.54 0.59 0.30 0.06 Q + Car
BI _4 = 100
RULE 1 Q + Car + Clay (9)
SASONOF 1 0.12 2.80 0.46 0.44 0.07
Q + HM 1
BI _5 = 1.09 ×
Q + HM + Car + Clay 8.8 (10)
Table 3
Key information for the petrophysical properties of the Murteree formation. Wsb Fsb
BI _6 =
Well name Avg ФT Avg Avg Clay Avg Quartz Avg wsb Fsb + wCb FCb + wwd Fwd + wφ φ (11)
(fraction) TOC (fraction) (fraction) Carbonates
(wt%) (fraction) Wsb Fsb
BI _7 =
wsb Fsb + wCb FCb + wwd Fwd + wφ φ (12)
Encounter 1 0.10 1.32 0.42 0.53 0.03
Moonta 0.02 2.8 0.60 0.26 0.06 BI _1 + BI _7
Holdfast 1 0.05 1.85 0.61 0.29 0.08 BI _T =
2 (13)
KINGSTON 0.08 2.31 0.59 0.28 0.09
RULE 1
where Q = quartz, Car = carbonates, Dol = dolomite, TOC = Total or-
SASONOF 1 0.17 2.68 0.48 0.44 0.04
ganic content, Wsb = weighing factor (0–1) for strong brittle minerals,
Wwd = weighing factor (0–1) for weak ductile minerals,
are necessary due to variation in the units of Young's modulus (GPa) WCb = weighing factor (0–1) for carbonate minerals, Fsb = fraction of
and Poisson's ratio (dimensionless). strong minerals like quartz, feldspar and Pyrite, Fwd = fraction of
The other method of calculation of brittleness index involves an weak/ductile minerals like clays and TOC, FCb = fraction of carbonates,
examination of mineral contents. The following equations are com- Wsb = Wwd = Wθ = 1 and WCb = 0.5 in case of BI6, while it is WCb = 1
monly used to find brittleness index (Jarvie et al., 2007; Wang and in BI_7. The rock with BI > 0.4 (40%) is considered brittle and suitable
for fracturing (Guo et al., 2015). After a comparative study of

40
O. Iqbal et al.
Fig. 6. FESEM image showing mineral contents, illite, siderite, quartz and kaolinite with kerogen for a) Roseneath b) Murteree formation, Encounter 1 well.
Fig. 7. a) Classification of rock into brittle, less brittle, less ductile and ductile based on brittleness index in z-axis, Young's modulus on Y-axis and Poisson's ratio on x-
axis. b) Same classification of rock by Perez et al. (2013). Note; the brittle rock have high brittleness index, Young's modulus and lower poisson's ratio.
brittleness, the total brittleness index is calculated by taking the
average of BI_1 and BI_7. The total brittleness index (BI_T) can be used
to classify the Roseneath and Murteree formations into mechanical
behavior like Brittle (> 0.48), less brittle (0.32–0.48), less ductile
(0.16–0.32), and ductile (0–0.16) as proposed by Perez et al. (2013).
2.5. Calculation of compressive strength and tensile strength
Compressive strength and tensile strength increase with rock den-
sity and decrease with rock porosity under formation conditions.
Compressive and tensile strength are also closely related to mineral
composition and porosity. Rocks are less resistant to tension than
compression: in fact, tensile strength is about 8–10% of compressive
strength. The following equations are commonly used, as expressed
below (Zoback et al., 2003).
2C
UCS =
(cos θ − (1 − Sinθ)tan θ)
UCS
T=
10
The mechanical strength of rocks directly from the core is highly
sensitive due to certain individual characteristics of experiments and
sample conditions (Fjar et al., 2008), differences reflected in the dif-
ferent descriptors of mechanical strength found in the literature
(Zoback et al., 2003). Generally, compressive strength is inversely
proportional to porosity and directly proportional to confining pressure
and Young's modulus. From the literature, it has been clear that failure
mechanism (cohesion and friction angle) is inversely proportional to
porosity and can be correlated to obtain a continued profile of failure
parameters (Jin et al., 2014). Therefore, the cohesion and friction an-
gles estimated on core samples by triaxial compression tests from well
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58
completion reports were found to correlate with porosity in the litera-
ture (Fig. 5). Then empirical relations were used to obtain a continuous
profile of mechanical strength and failure properties for all wells.
2.6. In-situ earth stresses
In-situ stress plays a vital role in different aspects of hydraulic
fracturing treatment. A hydraulic fracture simulator requires in-situ
stress profile as an input (Mohaghegh et al., 2004). The absence of in-
situ stress during the design of hydraulic fracture can give 50% error in
fracture length (Vonieff and Holditch, 1992). There are two methods
used to calculate in-situ stress. The first method is physical measure-
ment and the second is by using geophysical wire-line logs (Mohaghegh
et al., 2004). In this study, wire-line logs will be used to reveal the in-
situ stress profile.
There are three main stresses, namely; vertical, maximum, and
(14) minimum horizontal stresses. Vertical stress can be calculated through
the integration of rock density from the top to the bottom of depth
(Zoback et al., 2003).
(15)
z
σv = ∫0 ρ (Z ) gdz ≅ −
ρ gz (16)
Where ρ(Z) represents rock density and function of depth, g represents a
gravity constant. In this study, horizontal stress will be calculated using
poroelastic theory. In tectonically active basins, tectonic plate move-
ment creates tectonic stress and strain. This strain adds stress compo-
nents to elastic rock. This poroelastic horizontal strain takes tectonic
strain into account. Horizontal stresses can be calculated from over-
burden stress, Poisson's ratio, Biot's parameter, and pore pressure.
These stresses can be calculated by using the following formulation
(Zoback et al., 2003).
41
O. Iqbal et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58

Fig. 8. Comparison of brittleness index based on elastic parameters and mineral contents. Note there is good correlation exist between BI_1 and BI_7.

ν Eνε 3
σh = (σv − αPp) + αPp + ΔTn ⎞
1−ν 1 − ν2 (17) P = σv − (σv − Phyd ) ⎜⎛ ⎟
ΔT
⎝ log ⎠ (19)

ν Eε Where P = Pore pressure, σv = Overburden, ΔTn = Normal trend of

σH = (σv − αPp) + αPp +
1−ν 1 − ν2 (18)
Where ρ(z) is a bulk density of rock and function of depth. Vertical
stress is calculated by integrating all available density logs,
σh = minimum horizontal stress, σH = maximum horizontal stress,
v = Poisson's ratio, α = alpha, Pp = pore pressure, E = Young's mod-
ulus, σv = vertical tress and “Epsilon” Ɛ = strain factor. Pore pressure is
calculated using Eaton's approach as follows (Eaton, 1972): the Eaton's
approach involves picking a shale point using gamma ray logging and
then calculating the normal compaction trend line (ΔTn).
Sonic transit time (μs/ft), ΔTlog = Sonic log observed values,
Phyd = Normal hydrostatic pressure.
2.7. Hydraulic fracturing in the Roseneath and Murteree formations
Induced hydraulic fractures in stimulation treatments are created by
pumping fracturing fluid into perforation intervals at pressure, enough
to cause ‘tensile failure’ of the rock. The pressure required to break the
rock is known as breakdown pressure. The formation splits due to in-
duced tensile stress created by high-pressure fracturing fluid, and the
fracture propagates on further increase in pressure. Usually, sand is

42
O. Iqbal et al.
Fig. 9. Comparison of Brittleness index from mineralogy and elastic parameters and their variation accordingly with elastic parameters. Note; BI_7 and BI_1 are
consistent with elastic parameters for Roseneath Formation, Encounter 1 well.
used as a propping material to keep the induced fractures open after
pumping is done.
Generally, there are three types of processes involved during hy-
draulic fracturing stimulation; reactivation of open natural fractures
that exist in formation (Popen), re-opening of closed natural fractures
(either uncemented, partially cemented, or totally cemented fractures)
(Pclose) and newly-induced fractures by the breakdown of intact rock
(Pb) (Jacobi et al., 2009). Therefore, the following pressures were cal-
culated for the Roseneath and Murteree Formations;
Popen = σh,min (20)
PClose = 3σh,min − σH ,max − Pp (21)
Pb = 3σh,min − σH ,max − Pp + To (22)
3. Results
Five wells located in the same field were used as a case study. The
Roseneath and Murteree formations in terms of lithology contain
mainly shale with minor siltstone beds. In terms of mineralogy, both
formations contain mainly quartz, carbonate (siderite, minor calcite),
clay (illite, kaolinite, minor chlorite), and heavy minerals (minor pyrite,
anatase, rutile). The methods described above were used to calculate
petrophysical properties, including lithology, mineralogy, total organic
richness, and total porosity. The other geomechanical properties in-
clude elasticity, strength and failure parameters, along with an in-situ
stress profile, a brittleness index, and fracturing pressure. The
43
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58
mineralogy, porosity, and organic richness varies for all wells. The in-
tegrated model was developed in order to find the fracture barriers and
optimal/potential layers for fracturing. The effect of petrophysical
properties on geomechanical properties was examined. The average
petrophysical and geomechanical properties for the Roseneath and
Murteree formations are presented in Table 2 and Table 3.
3.1. Petrophysical characterization
The petrophysical properties for both formations varies in all wells.
The average properties measured for each well are shown in Tables 2
and 3. The TOC content of Roseneath shale ranges from 1.38 to 3.84 wt
%, whereas the same content of Murteree shale ranges from 1.32 to
2.8 wt%. The average total porosity of Roseneath shale ranges from
0.03 to 0.12 (fraction), whereas the total porosity of Murteree shale
ranges from 0.02 to 0.17 (fraction). The mineral composition of the
Roseneath and Murteree shales is dominated by quartz, clay (illite,
kaolinite minor chlorite), carbonates (siderite, minor limestone/dolo-
mite), ti-oxies, and minor pyrite. The mineral content is also visualized
in FESEM images as shown in Fig. 6.
3.2. Comparative analyses of brittleness
The identification of layers/intervals where rock is brittle enough is
of great importance in creating pathways for gas recovery. Brittleness
index is one of key factors for identifying and selecting fracturing in-
tervals and spots. Brittleness index from elastic parameters (BI_1) is, in
O. Iqbal et al.
Fig. 10. Comparison of Brittleness index from mineralogy and elastic parameters and their variation accordingly with elastic parameters. Note; BI_7 and BI_1 showed
good correlation with elastic parameters for Murteree Formation, Encounter 1 well.
fact, comparable with other models of brittleness index from miner-
alogy. Figs. 8, 9 and 10 show that BI_1 and BI_7 are closely related to
each other, with the examples of quartz and carbonates being brittle
and possessing a porosity affecting rock brittleness. The total brittleness
index (BI_T), which is actually an average of BI_1 and BI_7, is also used
for further analyses. A reservoir is classified into brittle, less brittle, less
ductile, and ductile zones, based on BI_T, as shown in Fig. 7. The cut-off
value for the brittleness index can be set by means of an examination of
the relationship between Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio (Grieser
and Bray, 2007). The cross plot between calibrated Young's modulus
and Poisson's ratio indicates that a high Young's modulus and a pow-
erful Poisson's ratio show brittle behavior.
3.3. The relationship between brittleness index (BI_T), TOC, porosity
Brittleness index is a complex function of lithology, composition,
effective stress, diagenesis, temperature, porosity, TOC, and geo-
mechanical properties (Altindag, 2003; Rickman et al., 2008; Wang and
Julia, 2009). The cross plots are developed between brittleness index
(BI_T) from mineralogy and elastic parameters with organic richness
and porosity (Figs. 11–14). It clearly indicates that TOC > 1 wt % falls
in brittle regions, TOC > 3 wt% falls in less brittle regions and
TOC > 4 wt% falls in less ductile regions for the Roseneath and Mur-
teree shales in the Encounter 1 well. Similar clusters are observed for
other wells. Likewise, there is a фT > 0.09 fall in brittle region,
фT > 0.18 fall in less brittle region and, фT > 0.27 fall in less ductile
region for the Roseneath shale, whereas there is a фT > 0.09 fall in
brittle region, фT > 0.27 fall in less brittle region, and фT > 0.36 fall in
the Murteree shale, in the Encounter 1 well. These relationships also
44
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58
indicate that porosity, TOC and BI from core samples have a negative
relation to each other. The relationships, in fact, indicate that brittle
minerals like quartz and carbonate from XRD increase, with an increase
in BI_T, whereas decrease with an increase in clay contents (Fig. 15).
The cross plots indicate that significant amounts of TOC, ductile clay,
brittle minerals, and porosity influence rock brittleness. The con-
centration of TOC contents can mark brittle, less brittle, and less ductile
zones. As BI_T is from both mineral contents and elastic parameters, so
the concentration of both TOC and porosity does effect elastic para-
meters, including Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio. Based on this,
the Roseneath and Murteree shale fall in less brittle zones, being the
maximum point fall in this whole region. Where there is evidence of
TOC > 1% fall, there is a significant decrease in BI, occurring alongside
an increase in TOC and porosity. These cross plots are reliable and
consistent with previous findings; i.e. TOC and porosity increasing
alongside a decrease in brittleness index. These outcomes are consistent
with previous studies, including Wang and Julia, 2009; Heidari et al.
(2014), and Liu and Sun (2015).
3.4. The relationship between pore pressure and brittleness index (BI_T)
In addition to TOC, porosity, and brittle minerals, pore pressure
could be another parameter affecting fracturing treatment (Zhang et al.,
2016). Pore pressure does affect the height and vertical growth of
fractures in shale reservoirs. In order to see its effect on the brittleness
index, their relationship is plotted in Fig. 16. This Figure indicates that
the brittleness index does not significantly contribute to pore pressure
in the Roseneath and Murteree shale, except for some layers where
pressure decreases alongside an increase in BI_T. This decrease in pore
O. Iqbal et al.
Fig. 11. Cross plot between total organic content (TOC) and brittleness Total (B-Total) for the Roseneath and Murteree Formations from Encounter 1. Note; there is a
decreasing trend of BI_T with an increase in TOC content.
Fig. 12. Cross plot between total organic content (TOC) and brittleness total (B-
Total) based on XRD and Rock pyrolysis for the Roseneath and Murteree for-
mations from Encounter 1. Note; BI decrease with an increase in TOC contents.
pressure could be due to the presence of ductile clay minerals. This
unusual decrease in BI_T is more prominent in the Encounter 1 well.
This Figure displays the frequency of each output. Based on frequency,
the BI_T for the Roseneath and Murteree shale mostly fall between 0.4
and 0.45 (Less brittle region), whereas, pore pressure falls mostly into
the range from 4000 to 4800 Psi. This outcome is consistent with the
previous study of Yasin et al. (2017).
3.5. Relationship between brittleness index, strength, and failure parameters
In order to find a relationship between stiffness, strength, and
brittleness of reservoirs, calculated properties are compared with the
brittleness index (BI_T). A multi-well cross plot is made to reveal a
45
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58
relationship between unconfined compressive strength and angle of
friction with brittleness index (BI_T), as shown in Fig. 17. There are no
significant effects observed between these parameters, except some
layers where BI_T increases along with an increase in compressive
strength and angle of friction. The positive relations in a few layers are
consistent with proposed definitions of brittleness index; i.e., brittle
rock has a high angle of friction and unconfined compressive strength
(Altindag, 2003). Nevertheless, this is not always true because strength
and stiffness are two different properties of materials. Stiff material may
or may not be strong because strength refers to load carrying capability
related to material failure properties, whereas stiffness actually refers to
deflection capability related to material property. Moreover, brittleness
index measures the stiffness and ability of rock to make fractures (Bai,
2016). Therefore, the bottom line is that brittle rock may or may not
possess high strength or any angle of friction.
3.6. Relationship between fracturing pressure and brittleness index
A key challenge in any hydraulic fracturing is, of course, the se-
lection of the most suitable working parameters, including the selection
of fracturing fluid, injection flow rate, and fracturing intervals for better
gas recovery. Therefore, it is necessary to possess a comprehensive
knowledge of each phase of the fracturing process, including treating
pressure (pressure at which rocks break), direction of fracture, size and
width of fractures, and fracturing intervals (Wang, 2016). Figs. 18–20
clearly indicate that there is a significant decrease in fracturing pressure
where there is an increase in brittleness index. It can be realized that
there is a significant decrease in brittleness index (BI_T), with an in-
crease in pressure for open fractures (Popen), pressure for closed frac-
tures (Pclose), and breakdown pressure (Pb). In Fig. 19, the upper Ro-
seneath formation has less fracturing pressure than the middle
Roseneath formation, while the lower Roseneath Formation has more
fracturing pressure, this being consistent with a comparative analysis of
brittleness index (Fig. 19). Similarly, in Fig. 20 the upper Murteree
formation has less fracturing pressure than the lower Murteree
O. Iqbal et al.
Fig. 13. Cross plot between total porosity and brittleness total (B-Total) for the Roseneath and Murteree formations from Encounter 1 well. Note; there is a decreasing
trend of BI_T with an increase in total porosity.
Fig. 14. Cross plot between brittleness Index from XRD and elastic parameters
and porosity from core samples for the Roseneath and Murteree formations,
Encounter 1 well. Note: BI_T decrease with an increase in porosity.
formation. Moreover, the multi-well cross plots are made to uncover the
relationship between treating/fracturing pressure and brittleness index
(BI_T). Generally, each fracturing pressure decreases with an increase in
brittleness index (BI_T), which could be due to the presence of quartz
and siderite and the stiff behavior of the rock.
Many researchers observed that less fracturing pressure is required
to open fractures in brittle layers due to the presence of quartz and
carbonate contents (Jacobi et al., 2009). If this is the case, then these
two minerals also contributed to high brittleness index and increased
Young's modulus. Hence, less fracturing pressure is due to higher brit-
tleness index (BI_T).
46
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58
3.7. Stress regime
It is very helpful to be able to obtain a measure of the magnitude of
in-situ stresses. For the magnitude of stresses helps in defining the stress
regime in a well or field. For instance, there are three stress regimes;
namely normal, strike slip, and reverse regimes. In the normal stress
regime, vertical stress is higher (σV ≻σH ≻σh) and a fault slip occurs when
stress, least horizontal stress, is very low. In the strike slip regime, there
exists an intermediate stress state and horizontal stress is at a maximum
level (σH ≻σV ≻σh) . In the reverse stress regime, maximum horizontal
stress is greater than vertical stress (σH ≻σh ≻σV ) and the stress field is
compressive. The comparison of in-situ stress conducted in this study
indicates that Encounter 1, Moonta 1, and Holdfast 1 have a normal
stress regime because vertical stress is higher (σV ≻σH ≻σh) . This implies
that hydraulic fracture propagates in a vertical plane and the fracture
plane will be perpendicular to minimum horizontal stress.
4. Discussion
The average porosities, organic richness, and amount of mineral
contents are all tabulated in Tables 2 and 3 The average values indicate
that both the Roseneath and Murteree formations have better potential
to become a shale gas reservoir. Shale gas evaluation requires a con-
sistent volume of mineral contents and this can be achieved by means of
a thorough integration of geophysical wire-line logs and XRD data. Both
the Roseneath and Murteree formations have more quartz, clay (illite,
kaolinite, and minor chlorite), carbonates (siderite, minor limestone),
and heavy minerals (rutile, anatase and minor pyrite).
It has become common practice in the industry to find reservoir
responses from brittleness index. It goes without saying that brittle rock
has a high brittleness index, but it also has a high Young's modulus, a
higher amount of quartz and carbonate, and a lower Poisson's ratio
(Guo et al., 2015; Rickman et al., 2008). Brittleness indices described in
the literature show different characteristics of rock (Hucka and Das,
1974; Jarvie et al., 2007; Wang and Julia, 2009). Any brittleness index
is usually estimated using elastic parameters (Young's modulus and
Poisson's ratio) and mineral contents. Nevertheless, a measure of
O. Iqbal et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58

Fig. 15. Cross plot between brittleness Index (BI-1) based on geomechanical properties and amount of a) quartz and siderite b) clays (illite and Kaolinite) from XRD
for the Roseneath and Murteree formations from Encounter 1 well. BI_T increase with an increase in quartz and siderite, whereas decrease with an increase in clay
contents.

Fig. 16. Relationship between pore pressure and total brittleness index. Note that no significant relationship exists between them, except for a few zones where pore
pressure increases alongside a decrease in brittleness.

brittleness from these two approaches does not yield a consistent pic-
ture of brittleness, even when measurements are taken on the same
reservoir. Different researchers define the term brittleness in their own
terms, making any attempt at a standard definition more conspicuous.
Generally, brittleness is used as a descriptor of brittle failure during
hydraulic fracturing. Brittleness; a property estimated from elastic
parameters and mineral contents, could also be applied to delineate
brittle layers of rock for fracturing. Well documented evidence indicates
that brittleness from elastic parameters, high quartz and carbonate
contents could be applied to brittle behavior of reservoir sites (Grieser
and Bray, 2007). Naturally, different empirical relations exist when
attempting to define brittleness from a mineralogical perspective. Some
researchers believed that only quartz is brittle (Jarvie et al., 2007;
Rybacki et al., 2016), while others believed that quartz and carbonates
are brittle (Jin et al., 2014), and that porosity also influences the brit-
tleness of rock (Rybacki et al., 2016). BI_2 to BI_6, for example, are
proposed relations from different researchers. BI_7 is computed from a
combination of BI_4 and BI_6, with the general conclusion that quartz

47
O. Iqbal et al.
Fig. 17. Relationship between strength and failure parameters with brittleness index. Note that no significant relation exists. Brittle rock may/may not have high
compressive strength and angle of friction.
and carbonate are brittle, with the added influence of porosity on rock
brittleness. Brittleness index from conventional well logs is of great
importance for fracturing ability. In practice, BI_1 serves as the most
representative definition, and it is also considered important that brit-
tleness from mineralogy should be closely related to brittleness from
elastic parameters (Jin et al., 2014).
As discussed earlier, elastic properties (Young's modulus and
Poisson's ratio) and brittleness index from elastic parameters (BI_1) may
be calculated from sonic logs and density logs. Static parameters on
core samples offer only limited values, and due to the difference be-
tween static and dynamic parameters, calibration is considered neces-
sary between these two parameters to acquire actual values of elastic
parameters. Therefore, calibrated Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio
are both used to find brittleness index (BI_1). BI_1 is, as mentioned,
traditionally treated as the most accurate way of measuring brittleness
index, and dipole sonic logs and density logs can be used to find BI_1
and serve as standard methods. However, BI_1 cannot be calculated for
wells, which are missing of any one of these logs. In this case, brittle-
ness index from mineralogy from XRD serves as standard. But miner-
alogy from XRD is not continuous, so mineralogy from the Mineral
Model may be used to find brittleness index (BI_7). Hence, in the pre-
sence of both geomechanical properties and a consistent volume of
minerals, the average of both BIs may be most representative of brit-
tleness index (Guo et al., 2015). Therefore, comparative analyses were
carried out between the brittleness indices from all approaches. BI_1
compared favorably with other models and there were very good cor-
relations found between BI_1 and BI_7, clearly implying that quartz and
carbonates are brittle minerals and that porosity does effect rock brit-
tleness. Hence, a total brittleness index (BI_T) was estimated from an
average of BI_1 and BI_7 and was used to classify rock into brittle, less
brittle, less ductile, and ductile types. The model BI_7 is therefore re-
commended to find brittleness from mineral contents.
Petrophysical properties, then, do effect the geomechanical prop-
erties of reservoirs. In the literature, some researchers argued that
brittleness index could be calculated from the ratio of compressive
strength to tensile strength (Altindag, 2003) and angle of friction (Jin
et al., 2014). However, this study argues that brittle rock may or may
not have a high compressive strength and friction angle. There is, in
fact, no direct relationship between brittleness index and other me-
chanical properties such as uncompressive strength, tensile strength,
48
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58
friction angle, cohesion, and pore pressure. Petrophysical properties,
including TOC and porosity, do indeed effect brittleness index (Wang
and Julia, 2009; Heidari et al., 2014). There is a decreasing trend of
brittleness index observed alongside an increase in TOC and porosity.
Brittleness index is best represented by elastic parameters (Young's
modulus and Poisson's ratio) and mineral contents. Furthermore, high
and low TOC content and porosity can mark brittle, less brittle and less
ductile zones.
4.1. Identification of fracture barriers and potential layers for hydraulic
fracturing
The main purpose of hydraulic fracturing is to achieve favorable
linear extension, optimum width, and vertical height growth of hy-
draulic fractures, while at the same time gaining the opportunity to
identify brittle layers with less stress concentration for better produc-
tion. To achieve these goals, reservoir characterization is needed from
the different aspects, which are directly controlling efficiency of the
hydraulic fractures. Therefore, it is important in fracture design to lo-
cate fracture barriers controlling vertical growth and to locate those
zones, which are brittle enough for favorable lateral extension of frac-
tures (Jacobi et al., 2009). Brittleness index by itself would not be
sufficient to find barriers and potential layers. Therefore, stress con-
centration around well bore must be accessed in order to detect barriers
and potential layers. As it is clearly understood in the field, hydraulic
fractures propagate perpendicular to the least-principal stress and in
deep formations, due to considerable overburden stress. Minimum
horizontal stress is, in fact, the least-principal stress (Zoback et al.,
2003). In-situ minimum horizontal stress is the most vital pre-fracture
stimulation parameter, also taken as closure pressure. For instance,
changes in minimum horizontal stress can only extend laterally with
difficulty to create a pathway for gas recovery (Jacobi et al., 2009). In
this study, fracture barriers and potential layers are identified based on
variation in brittleness index and in-situ minimum horizontal stress.
Brittleness index (BI_T), which is a function of both mineralogy and
elastic parameters, was classified at the Roseneath and Murteree for-
mations into brittle, less brittle, less ductile, and ductile behavior, as
previously noted. These behaviors were further investigated with in-
situ minimum horizontal stress. The layers possessing high BI_T (usually
greater than 0.4) showed less minimum horizontal stress and were
O. Iqbal et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58

Fig. 18. Relationship between fracturing pressure and brittleness index. Note there is a significant decrease in fracturing pressure with an increase in brittleness
Index. This suggest the less fracturing pressure is required to induce fracture in brittle layers.

49
O. Iqbal et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58

Fig. 19. Relationship between fracturing pressure and brittleness index. Note; Significant decrease in fracturing pressure with an increase in brittleness index.

considered the best potential layers. Layers with less BI_T (less than This model illustrates a comparison of fracturing pressure, mineralogy,
0.4), on the other hand, and a high minimum horizontal stress corre- brittleness index and other petrophysical and geomechanical proper-
sponded to fracture barriers. An integrated model, developed for the ties. In this well, there is a strong lateral correlation observed between
Roseneath Formations Encounter 1 well, is shown in Figs. 21 and 22. brittleness index (BI_T), minimum horizontal stress, and fracturing

50
O. Iqbal et al.
Fig. 20. Relationship between fracturing pressure and brittleness index. Note; Significant decrease in fracturing pressure with an increase in brittleness index.
pressures. At the top of the Roseneath formation, quartz and siderite
contents increase corresponding to a reduction in clay content. The
minimum horizontal stress is also relatively less than in the middle and
lower parts of the formation. In this upper part, there are a number of
blue-colored layers, considered favorable for fracturing because their
organic richness and total porosity are also relatively less compared to
the lower parts. However, there are certain visible fracture barriers
which are black in color, possibly representing fracture attenuators.
There is relatively high magnitude of minimum horizontal stress and
low BI_T (< 0.4) was observed in fracture barriers (Black zones), where
the less magnitude of minimum horizontal stresses and high BI_T
(> 0.4) was observed in optimal/prospected/brittle layers (Blue zones).
There few zones where BI_T is very close to 0.4 and relatively medium
minimum horizontal stresses are considered as partial brittle layers
(while zones). The fracturing pressure profile is also relatively less than
the middle and lower parts of the formation. There is a definite trend
where minimum horizontal stress increases from the top section to-
wards the bottom of the formation, while the middle part has less fa-
vorable layers for fracturing due to relatively high minimum horizontal
stress, organic richness, total porosity, and less brittleness index. In
51
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58
comparison with the upper and middle parts, the lower part almost
behaves as a fracture barrier and increases along with the increase in
clay content. The fracturing pressure is clearly higher than in the above
layers. These finding are also consistent with those previously discussed
in Figs. 19 and 20. There is a definite pattern of an increase in frac-
turing pressure, minimum horizontal stress, and clay contents, along
with a decrease in brittleness index (BI_T).
For the Murteree formations in Encounter 1 well, a similar trend
was observed. The upper part of the formation reveals relatively more
favorable zones than the lower part. In comparison, the Roseneath
formation is seen as more favorable for fracturing than the Murteree
formation in Encounter 1 well. The brittle quartz and siderite within
these formations clearly marks a difference in fracture performance
between the Roseneath and Murteree formations.
The Roseneath formation in Holdfast 1 well shows a greater varia-
tion in properties, as illustrated in Figs. 23 and 24. The Roseneath
formation certainly has more favorable layers in this well. These fa-
vorable layers also correspond to the presence of more brittle quartz
and siderite than in the Encounter 1 well. In comparison, the Murteree
formation possesses relatively fewer prospected layers. In both wells,
O. Iqbal et al.
Fig. 21. Integrated Model for identification of potential zones and fracture barriers for optimizing hydraulic fracturing treatment in Roseneath Formation, Encounter
1.
the Roseneath formation definitely exhibits more potential than the
Murteree formation.
The relatively minimum horizontal stress calculated for favorable
potential layers of the Roseneath formation is less than that of the
Murteree formation. Treating pressure for stimulating the rock in the
lower part of the Roseneath formation is higher than in the lower part
of the Murteree formation. Higher treating pressure contributes to the
presence of less quartz, while a lower treating pressure contributes to a
higher amount of quartz, indicating a high brittleness index (BI_T)
(Jacobi et al., 2009). Potentially favorable layers are thereby identified
52
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58
and recommended for fracturing, as there will probably be good frac-
ture initiation and propagation in these layers. On the other hand,
fracture barriers will cause vertical fracture confinement and in many
previous cases poor confinement of fractures had a very negative con-
sequence on production, especially when fractures communicate with a
water-bearing level (Fjar et al., 2008).
Brittle quartz and carbonate minerals, as mentioned previously,
create a significant difference in fracture performance between both
formations. These brittle minerals may have natural fractures that
contribute to the growth of hydraulic fractures. Thin sections of
O. Iqbal et al.
Fig. 22. a) Integrated Model for the identification of potential zones and fracture barriers for optimizing hydraulic fracturing treatment in Murteree Formation,
Encounter 1. b) Legends of mineral contents and lithology.
Roseneath and Murteree shale evince the mineralized fractures in
quartz and siderite rich intervals, as shown in Figs. 25 and 26. The
presence of fractures in these formations indicate that there would less
fracturing pressure required to break the rock and that these fractures
may connect with induced fractures to enhance permeability.
When gas escapes from the matrix, brine fluid flows, probably from
a thermal source from beneath (Jacobi et al., 2009). This fluid passes
53
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58
through the matrix and minerals like quartz and carbonates precipitate
from the solution, and mineralization occurs due to the precipitation of
these minerals. Some mineralized fractures remain as open fractures in
the matrix. Hence, brittle minerals contribute to the development of
natural fractures. These natural fractures lower down the fracturing
pressure required to break the rock.
The type of fluid required, and the proppant type and size depend
O. Iqbal et al.
Fig. 23. Integrated Model for the identification of potential zones and fracture barriers for optimizing hydraulic fracturing treatment in Roseneath formation,
Holdfast 1.
upon brittleness and the minimum horizontal stress. For high brittleness
the best fluid type is slick water with sand as a proppant (Rickman
et al., 2008). The practical use of an integrated model helped to analyze
and recommend a stimulation design for both the Roseneath and
Murteree formations, as shown in Tables 4 and 5.
The design for hydraulic fracturing is recommended based on
identified fracture barriers and brittle layers. It has been seen that re-
latively low fracturing pressure is required to induce fracture at layer
with high brittleness index (> 0.4) and the minimum horizontal stress
is also low in brittle layers. Whereas, at fracture barriers, the low
brittleness index (< 0.4) and high magnitude of minimum horizontal
54
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58
stress is observed with high fracturing pressure required to induce
fractures. The zones marked with “Y” are recommended for fracturing,
whereas, zones marked with “N” would not be potential to make effi-
cient network of fractures.
5. Conclusion
Based on the results, analyses and discussion in this study, it is
concluded that:
• The design of hydraulic fracturing stimulation can be optimized
O. Iqbal et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58

Fig. 24. Integrated model for the identification of potential zones and fracture barriers for optimizing hydraulic fracturing treatment in Murteree formation, Holdfast
1.

through identification of fracture barriers and prospected/optimal/
brittle layers through reservoir characterization, in terms of its
petrophysical and geomechanical properties, which can be esti-
mated/measured from core-log integration.
• The consistent volume of reservoir parameters can be estimated
through correlations based on calibration of wire-line logs and core
data.
• Brittleness index and in-situ earth stresses are factors that can be
used to select most productive/brittle layers and fracture barriers to
optimize hydraulic fracturing in Roseneath and Murteree shale gas

55
O. Iqbal et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58

Fig. 25. a) Siderite mineralized fractures in Murteree shale (Red arrow) in clay lamina b) Quartz mineralized fracture in Murteree shale (Red arrow). Note: Y shaped
branching (Red arrow) represent fracture pattern where thinner fracture is connecting with wider fractures, Encounter-1.

Fig. 26. a) Quartz mineralized fracture (red arrow) and open fracture (blue arrow) in Roseneath shale b) showing brittle crystal of siderite (red arrow), organic
matter (opaque, blue arrow), quartz (green arrow) in Roseneath shale. Note: Less fracture pressures are required to open these fractured rocks, Encounter-1.

Table 4
Recommendation for stimulation design in Roseneath Formation, Encounter-1 well.
Zone Brittleness Thickness m Minimum horizontal stress Psi P_b (Psi) Recommendation

Fluid type Proppant type Frac. ?

1 0.4 23 5628 13478 Slick water sand Y

2 0.41 8 5905 > 14599 Slick water sand Y
3 0.4 23 6592 17228 Slick water sand Y
4 0.41 24 6953 18567 – – Y
5 0.34 56 8234 22942 – – N
6 0.32 7 10098 29202 – – N
7 0.305 20 9889 28997 – – N
8 0.27 20 11189 32550 – – N
9 0.28 4 10952 13478 – – N

Table 5
Recommendation for stimulation design in the Murteree formation, Encounter-1 well.
Zone Brittleness Thickness m Minimum horizontal stress Psi P_b (Psi) Recommendation

Fluid type Proppant type Frac. ?

10 0.35 4 11830 31430 Slick water sand N

11 0.44 3 9034 22527 – – Y
12 0.46 9 7900 19984 Slick water sand Y
13 0.43 21 8870 23765 Slick water sand Y
14 0.36 40 11347 39350 – – N

56
O. Iqbal et al.
formations
• Brittleness index is a function of mineralogy, porosity and elastic
parameters and can be used to classify reservoirs into brittle, less
brittle, less ductile, and ductile layers; where quartz and siderite are
considered brittle minerals and clay minerals are the most ductile
minerals with the addition of porosity on rock brittleness.
•
The comparative analysis of brittleness index indicated that B_I
based on calibrated elastic parameters and BI_7 based on mineralogy
are most representative of brittleness, in such case, average of BI_1
and BI_7 could be used to represent the brittleness of rock.
• The most productive/suitable layers possess a high BI_T (> 0.4) and
low magnitude of minimum horizontal stress associated with both
brittle layers and less brittle layers. Nevertheless, layers act as
fracture barriers with low BI_T (< 0.4) and high magnitude of
minimum horizontal stresses can hinder the growth of induced
fractures.
• The proposed fracture barriers are considered barriers for fracture
growth, which could be used to control the fracture growth into an
unwanted adjacent faulted and water rich zones areas. Whereas,
brittle/optimal layers are amenable for fracturing, where fracture
would be initiated and propagated more efficiently.
• The practical application of an integrated study lies in the re-
commendation of design of hydraulic fracturing stimulation in
Roseneath and Murteree shale formation, which may/may not be
applicable to other shale formation depending upon the petrophy-
sical and geomechanical properties.
• There is a normal stress regime marked in Encounter-1, Holdfast-1
and Moonta-1, where hydraulic fractures will be propagating in
perpendicular direction to minimum horizontal stress with shorter
width, but longer fractures. While in KINGSTON RULE -1 and
SASONOF -1 wells, the stress regime is strike slip, hydraulic frac-
tures will be perpendicular to minimum horizontal stress with
shorter length but with longer width.
• When compared, Roseneath shale is found to be brittle to less brittle
in nature, whereas Murteree shale is less brittle in nature. This
classification makes Roseneath more suitable for hydraulic frac-
turing.
Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, and
Institute of Hydrocarbon Recovery, in Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
for providing us funding for this research. The authors are also thankful
to the DSD Australia for their generosity in providing us with a gen-
erous amount of freely available data.
References
Ahmad, Maqsood, Iqbal, O., Kadir, A.A., 2017. Quantification of Organic richness through
wireline logs: a case study of Roseneath shale formation, Cooper basin, Australia. IOP
Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 88 (1).
Altindag, R., 2003. Correlation of Specific Energy with Rock Brittleness Concepts on Rock
Cutting. The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, pp. 163–172.
Alzahabi, Ahmed, Bateman, Richard, 2015. Fracturability index maps for fracture pla-
cement. Hydraul. Fracturing J. 2 (1).
Anderson, Ernest Masson, 1951. Book, “The Dynamics of Faulting and Dyke Formations”.
Oliver and Boyd, pp. 206.
Bai, Mao, 2016. Why are brittleness and fracability not equivalent in designing hydraulic
fracturing in tight shale gas reservoirs. Petroleum 2 (1), 1–19.
Boulis, A., Jayakumar, R., Rai, R., 2013. Application of well spacing optimization
workflow in various shale gas resources: lessons learned. In: IPTC 2013: International
Petroleum Technology Conference.
Buller, D., Hughes, S.N., Market, J., Petre, J.E., Spain, D.R., Odumosu, T.,January, 2010.
Petrophysical evaluation for enhancing hydraulic stimulation in horizontal shale gas.
In: Proceedings of SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of
Petroleum Engineers”.
Bust, V.K., Majid, Azlan a., Oletu, J.U., Worthington, P.F., 2013. The petrophysics of shale
gas reservoirs: technical challenges and pragmatic solutions. Petrol. Geosci. 19 (2),
91–103.
Cluff, 2012. How to access shales from well logs. In: IOGA 66th Annual Meeting. Indiana,
Evansville.
57
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58
Daniels, John Leonard, Waters, George A., Joel Herve, Le Calvez, Doug, Bentley, Lassek,
John T., 2007. Contacting more of the barnett shale through an integration of real-
time microseismic monitoring, petrophysics, and hydraulic fracture design. In: SPE
annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Dewhurst, David N., Joël, Sarout, Claudio, Delle Piane, Siggins, Anthony F., Raven, Mark
D., 2015. Empirical strength prediction for preserved shales. Mar. Petrol. Geol. 67,
512–525.
Eaton, B.A., 1972. The effect of overburden stress on geopressures prediction from well
logs. J. Petrol. Technol. 2, 292–297. 24, SPE-3719-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/
3719-PA Editions Technip.
Fjar, Erling, Holt, Rune M., Raaen, A.M., Risnes, Rasmus, Horsrud, P., 2008. Petroleum
Related Rock Mechanics, vol. 53 Elsevier.
Goktan, R.M., Yilmaz, N.G., 2005. A new methodology for the analysis of the relationship
between rock brittleness index and drag pick cutting efficiency. J. S. Afr. Inst. Min.
Metall 105 (10), 727.
Grieser, William, Bray, James, 2007. Identification of production potential in un-
conventional reservoirs. In: Proceedings of Production and Operations Symposium.
Guo, Jian Chun, Luo, Bo, Zhu, Hai-Yan, Wang, Yong-Hui, Lu, Qian-Li, Zhao, Xing, 2015.
Evaluation of fracability and screening of perforation interval for tight sandstone gas
reservoir in western Sichuan Basin. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 25, 77–87.
Hall, L.S., Boreham, C.J., Edwards, D.S., Palu, T., Buckler, T., Hill, A.J., Troup, A., 2016.
Cooper Basin source rock geochemistry: regional hydrocarbon prospectivity of the
Cooper Basin, Part 2. Rec. Geosci. Aust. 06.
Heidari, M., Khanlari, G.R., Torabi-Kaveh, M., Kargarian, S., Saneie, S., 2014. Effect of
porosity on rock brittleness. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 47 (2), 785–790.
Herwanger, Jorg V., Mildren, Scott D., 2015. Uses and abuses of the brittleness index with
application to hydraulic stimulation. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Unconventional
Resources Technology Conference, no. August.
Hubbert, Mk, Willis, Dg, 1957. Mechanics of hydraulic fracturing. J. Petrol. Technol. 6,
153–166 9.
Hucka, V., Das, B., 1974. Brittleness determination of rocks by different methods. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 11 (1), 389–392 Pergamon.
Iqbal, O., Ahmad, M., Abd Kadir, A.P.A., 2017. Geomechanical characterization of po-
tential Roseneath shale gas, Cooper basin, Australia. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 12 (17).
Jacobi, David, Breig, J., LeCompte, B., Kopal, M., Hursan, G., Mendez, F., Bliven, S.,
Longo, J., 2009. Effective geochemical and geomechanical characterization of shale
gas reservoirs from the wellbore environment: caney and the woodford shale. In: SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition SPE 124231, pp. 1–20.
Jadoon, Quaid Khan, 2016. Unconventional Shale Gas Reservoir Characterization and
Modelling of the Permian Roseneath and Murteree Shales in the Cooper Basin,
Australia. PhD thesis. James Cook University.
Jahandideh, Atefeh, Jafarpour, Behnam, 2016. Optimization of hydraulic fracturing de-
sign under spatially variable shale fracability. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 138, 174–188.
Jarvie, Daniel M., Hill, Ronald J., Ruble, Tim E., Pollastro, Richard M., 2007.
Unconventional shale-gas systems: the Mississippian Barnett Shale of north-central
Texas as one model for thermogenic shale-gas assessment. Am. Assoc. Petrol.
Geoscientists Bull. 91 (4), 475–499.
Jin, Xiaochun, Shah, Subhash N., Roegiers, Jean-Claude, Zhang, Bo, 2014. “Fracability
evaluation in shale reservoirs-an integrated petrophysics and geomechanics ap-
proach. In: SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, pp. 1–14.
King, G., 19–22 September 2010. Thirty years of gas shale fracturing: what have we
learned ? In: Proceedings of SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Paper
133456- MS), , Florence, Italy.
Krygowski, Daniel A., 2003. Guide to Petrophysical Interpretation DEN5, Austin, Texas
USA, pp. 47.
Lai, Jin, Wang, Guiwen, Huang, Longxing, Li, Weiling, ye, Ran, Wang, Di, Zhou,
Zhenglong, Chen, Jing, 2015. Brittleness index estimation in a tight shaly sandstone
reservoir using well logs. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 27, 1536–1545.
Li, Q., Chen, M., Jin, Y., Zhou, Y., Wang, F.P., Zhang, R., March, 2013. Rock mechanical
properties of shale gas reservoir and their influences on hydraulic fracture. In:
Proceedings of IPTC, International Petroleum Technology Conference, 2013.
Li, Yuwei, Dan, Jiaa, Ruic, Zhenhua, Peng, Jiyong, Fu, Chunkai, Zhang, Jun, 2017.
Evaluation method of rock brittleness based on statistical constitutive relations for
rock damage. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 153 (February), 123–132.
Liu, Zhishui, Sun, Zandong, 2015. New brittleness indexes and their application in shale/
clay gas reservoir prediction. Petrol. Explor. Dev. 42 (1), 129–137.
Mohaghegh, S.D., Popa, A., Gaskari, R., Wolhart, S., Siegfreid, R., Ameri, S., 2004.
Determining in-situ stress profile from logs. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, TX.
Nordeng, S.H., 2009. The Bakken Petroleum System: an example of a continuous petro-
leum accumulation. Dep. Miner. Resour. Newsl. 36 19e22.
Passey, Q.R., Creaney, S., Kulla, J.B., Moretti, F.J., Stroud, J.D., 1990. Practical model for
organic richness from porosity and resistivity logs. AAPG (Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol.) Bull.
74 (12), 1777–1794.
Perez, Roderick, Marfurt, Kurt, Oklahoma, U., 2013. Brittleness Estimation from Seismic
Measurements in Unconventional Reservoirs: Application to the Barnett Shale. pp.
2258–2263 no. 2003.
PIRSA (Primary Industries and Regions of South Australia), 2007. Petroleum Geology of
South Australia, vol. 4. Cooper Basin. South Australian Department of Primary
Industries and Resources Report Book, pp. 203–209.
Ramirez, T., Klein, J., Bonnie, R., Howard, J., 2011. Comparative study of formation
evaluation methods for unconventional shale gas reservoirs: application to the hay-
nesville shale (Texas). In: North American Unconventional Gas Conference and
Exhibition, vol. i. pp. 31.
Rickman, Rick, Mullen, Mike, Petre, Erik, Grieser, Bill, Kundert, Donald, 2008. A practical
use of shale petrophysics for stimulation design optimization: all shale plays are not
O. Iqbal et al.
clones of the Barnett Shale. In: Society of Petroleum Engineering, Annual Technical
Conference Exhibition, pp. 1–11.
Rybacki, E., Meier, T., Dresen, G., 2016. What controls the mechanical properties of shale
rocks? - Part II: brittleness. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 144, 39–58.
Shi, Xian, Wang, Jiang, Ge, Xinmin, Han, Zhongying, Qu, Guanzheng, Jiang, Shu, 2017. A
new method for rock brittleness evaluation in tight oil formation from conventional
logs and petrophysical data. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 151, 169–182.
Sondergeld, Carl, Kent, Newsham, Joseph, Comisky, Rice, Morgan, Rai, Chandra, 2010.
Petrophysical considerations in evaluating and producing shale gas resources. In: SPE
Unconventional Gas Conference. February, pp. 1–34.
Vallee, Melissa, 2013. Petrophysical Evaluation of Lacustrine Shales in the Cooper Basin,
Australia.
Vonieff, G.W., Holditch, S.A., 1992. An economic assessment of applying recent advances
in fracturing technology to six tight gas formations. In: SPE Annual Technical
Conference, Washington, DC, 4-7, SPE 24888.–29 September 2004, SPE 90070.
Wang, H., 2016. Numerical investigation of fracture spacing and sequencing effects on
multiple hydraulic fracture interference and coalescence in brittle and ductile re-
servoir rocks. Eng. Fract. Mech. 157, 107.
58
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 58 (2018) 34–58
Wang, Fred P., Julia, FW Gale, 2009. Screening Criteria for Shale-gas Systems. AAPG
Bulletin.
Willis, Roger B., Fontaine, James S., Owlen Paugh, Lensie, Gene Griffin, Lawrence, 2005.
Geology and geometry: a review of factors affecting the effectiveness of hydraulic
fracturing. In: SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, pp. 1–8.
Wright, C., Weijers, L., Davis, E., Mayerhofer, M., 1999. Understanding Hydraulic
Fracture Growth: Tricky but Not Hopeless. pp. 10 SPE 56724.
Yasin, Qamar, Du, Qizhen, Ghulam, M. Sohail, Atif, Ismail, 2017. Impact of organic
contents and brittleness indices to differentiate the brittle-ductile transitional zone in
shale gas reservoir. Geosci. J. 21 (5), 779–789.
Zhang, Decheng, Ranjith, P.G., Perera, M.S.A., 2016. The brittleness indices used in rock
mechanics and their application in shale hydraulic fracturing: a review. J. Petrol. Sci.
Eng. 143, 158–170.
Zhou, Jing, Huang, Hai, Deo, Milind, 2015. A new physics-based modeling of multiple
non-planar hydraulic fractures propagation. In: Unconventional Resources
Technology Conference. URTEC.
Zoback, M.D., Barton, C.D., Wiprut, D.J., 2003. Determination of stress orientation and
magnitude in deep wells. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 40, 1049–1076.