Upload
katrina-garrett
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
G. Leśniak1, R. Cicha-Szot1, M. Stadtmüller1, M. Mroczkowska-Szerszeń1, L. Dudek1, G. Tallec2, A. Butcher2, H. Lemmens2, P. Such1
1Oil and Gas Institute – National Research Institute, Krakow, Poland2Oil & Gas FEI Visualization Sciences Group, Merignac, France
POSIBILITIES OF QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF POLISH SHALE-GAS ROCKS PETROPHYSICAL AND GEOMECHANICAL
PARAMETERS BY LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS AND WELL LOGS INTERPRETATION
2014-56
1 10 100 1000 100000
5
10
15
20
7,4m
Por
e vo
lum
e [%
]
Pore size Diameter (nm)
3nm
0,36m
4,5nm
2,2nm
0,92m
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1 10 100 1000 100000
5
10
15
2,57nm
45nm7,2m
0,36m
Por
e vo
lum
e [%
]
Pore size Diameter (nm)
3nm
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
5.3 nm3.8 nm
1 10 100 1000 100000,000
0,001
0,002
0,003
0,004
Por
e vo
lum
e [%
]
Pore size Diameter (nm)
3,1nm
45nm
0,36m
1,8m
7,24m
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
10 100 1000 10000 1000000
5
10
15
20
25
0,36m
Por
e vo
lum
e [%
]
Pore size Diameter (nm)
3,9nm
45nm
1,8m
Quartz
PlagliokazeFeldsparCalcite
Dolomite
AnkeritePiryte
ApatiteMarcesyte
Illite + Micas
Chlorite
TOC 0.66 % Total porosity 4.94 % Secondary porosity (TOC) 0.01 %
TOC 0.48 % Total porosity 6.49 % Secondary porosity (TOC) 0.13 %
TOC 4.56 % Total porosity 9.45 % Secondary porosity (TOC) 2.42 %
TOC 4.87 % Total porosity 7.80 % Secondary porosity (TOC) 2.79 %
MINERAL COMPOSITION
PETROPHYSICAL ANALYSIS
GEOCHEMICALANALYSIS
GEOMECHANICALANALYSIS
XRD, FTIR, ICP
SEMFIB-SEM
MINERAL MAPPING
MERCURY POROSIMETRYARGON POROSIMETRY
PERMEABILITY
TOC, HI
TRIAXIALCOMPRESSION
TESTVp, Vs
WELL LOGS,SEDIMENTOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND PETROGRAPHICAL
ANALYSIS (THIN SECTION)
SEPARATED ELECTROFACIES
ELECTROFACIES CHARACTERIZATION AND
CALIBRATION
XRMI data are highest achievable well log resolution and give possibility to correlate laboratory data. Result of this correlation should be used in upscaling procedure from laboratory analyses to the standard logs and further for seismic and structural models. Precise work flow planning is essential in order to omit artefacts. Moreover, statistical representations of analyzed samples, especially in micro scale, is crucial to obtain coherent results from different analysis. In order to predict geomechanical parameters in wells from which there is no core material, but geological formation was characterized before in another parametrical well, extrapolation of petrophysical and geomechanical data is possible but should be verified on cuttings or side-wall cores by instrumental analysis and microscopic methods.
During development of shale gas reservoir exploration there will be less and less parametric wells from which cores are available and extensive research program covering standard and special core analyses is performed. It is due to demand of oil and gas companies to reduce drilling time and cost and their joyful faith in geophysical well logs, despite the cost of well logging is generally more expensive than laboratory analyses. Moreover, the possibility of control well trajectory during drilling horizontal wells, based on new sets of logs, force to perform the same measurements in the vertical sections.Therefore, calibration of well logs, not only new ones but also classic ones from which we have data from 70’s and 80’s of 20th century, becomes very relevant. Finding the relationship between well logs and petrophysical, geomechanical and mineralogical parameters will improve interpretation of well logs.Probably in the coming years laboratory analyses will be performed only on side-wall cores or cuttings. Conducting analyses on cuttings might be problematic because of novel polymeric and oil based muds which are hard to remove from rocks and small percentage of rock samples from PDP drill bits which are suitable for analysis. That is why most of the analysis will have to be perform on side-wall cores from interesting formations like sweet spots and caprocks.To be ready for this challenge methodology of transferring analytical data, which gave comprehensive rock characteristic, to well logs parameters has to be developed in order to estimation geomechanical parametres of separated facies.
Based on well logs in parametric well geophysical facies (electrofacies) might be distinguished. Electrofacies can be described as a rock type sediment exhibiting similar set of well log responses. This classification does not require any artificial data subdivision of data population but follows naturally based on the unique data values reflecting minerals and lithofacies within the interval. Procedure of facies isolation is based on finding characteristic value ranges for microelectrical curve for analyzed interval. Calibration of electrofacies separation procedure was done based on quantitative laboratory analyses and its accuracy strongly depends on the available data statistic.
0 10 20 30 40 50
Dep
th [m
]
E,K,G [GPa]
E K G
2000 3000 4000
Vp Vs
Vp, Vs [m/s]
0 10 20 30 40 50
Dep
th [m
]
E,K,G [GPa]
E K G
2000 3000 4000
Vp Vs
Vp, Vs [m/s]
0 10 20 30 40 50
Dep
th [m
]
E,K,G [GPa]
E K G
2000 3000 4000
Vp Vs
Vp, Vs [m/s]
0 10 20 30 40 50
Dep
th [m
]
E,K,G [GPa]
E K G
2400 3200 4000
Vp Vs
Vp, Vs [m/s]
BackgroundQuartzK-FeldsparAlbiteCalciteDolomiteMuscoviteBiotiteKaoliniteI lliteSmectiteChloritePyriteRutileApatiteZirconMonaziteGypsum/AnhydriteHalite/NaCl MudKCl MudOthers
Visualisation of the separated organics bodies
3D visualization of the organic
material
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Quartz Clays Carbonates
Dep
th [m
]
Mineral content [%]
1 10 100 1000 10000
0
5
10
15
20
7,4m
Incr
emen
tal P
ore
Vol
ume
(%)
Pore size Diameter (nm)
3nm0,36m
4,5nm
2,2nm
0,92m
1 10 100 1000 100000
5
10
15
20
Incr
emen
tal v
olum
e [%
]
Pore size diameter [nm]
incremental volume - isotherm adsorption incremental volume - mercury intrusion
0 3 6
3720
3700
3680
3660
3640
3620
3600
3580
3560
3540
3520
3500
3480
3460
3440
3420
Dep
th [m
]
TOC[%]
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 143000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
f1 logs f2 logs f3 logs f4 logs f5 logs f6 logs f7 logs f1 lab f2 lab f3 lab f4 lab f5 lab f6 lab f7 lab f1 lab HP f2 lab HP f3 lab HP f4 lab HP f5 lab HP f6 lab HP
Vp [m
/s]
Total porosity [%]
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
10000 1000 100 10 10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Pore diameter [nm]
Po
re v
olu
me
[%
]
10000 1000 100 10 10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Pore diameter [nm]
Por
e vo
lum
e [%
]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10000 1000 100 10 1
Pore diameter [nm]
Por
e vo
lum
e [%
]
10000 1000 100 10 10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Pore diameter [nm]
Por
e vo
lum
e [%
]