Rock Typing in Eagle Ford, Barnett, and Woodford Formations
- Ishank Gupta (University of Oklahoma) | Chandra Rai (University of Oklahoma) | Carl H. Sondergeld (University of Oklahoma) | Deepak Devegowda (University of Oklahoma)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
- Publication Date
- August 2018
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 654 - 670
- 2018.Society of Petroleum Engineers
- K-Means, Rock Typing, Self Organizing Maps, Integrated Workflow, Data Mining
- 25 in the last 30 days
- 579 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 12.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
Shales are the most commonly found sedimentary rocks on Earth. Most US shale plays are massive, with different maturity regions and varying prospects. There has been a paradigm shift in the understanding of shale anisotropy and microstructures in the last decade, with a high focus on the identification of sweet spots and optimal reservoir-quality zones. Rock typing is one of the sought-after techniques to achieve this objective, and it has become an integrated part of the unconventional-characterization work flow.
In this work, rock typing was performed with an integrated work flow using laboratory petrophysical measurements. The rock types were derived with machine-learning clustering algorithms—namely, K-means and self-organizing maps (SOM). The integrated work flow was applied in three different shale plays: Eagle Ford, Barnett, and Woodford.
Three different rock types were identified. In general, Rock Type 1 had the highest porosity and total organic carbon (TOC), indicative of highest storage and source-rock potential, respectively. Rock Type 1 was also the key rock type controlling the production. Rock Type 2 had intermediate porosity and TOC, whereas Rock Type 3 had the lowest porosity and TOC.
Next, core-derived rock types had to be scaled up to logs. Support vector machines (SVM), a classification algorithm, was used for scaling up. It was trained with a data set consisting of depths at which both core and log data were available. Different logs such as gamma ray, resistivity, neutron, and density were used for scaling up. Finally, a rock-type ratio (RTR) was defined from rock-type logs based on fraction of Rock Type 1 over gross thickness. The ratio thus developed was found to have a strong correlation with normalized oil-equivalent production rate.
In total, 22 wells with core data were considered for rock typing in the three shale plays. The rock types were scaled up to 95 wells at a cumulative over a 20,000-ft depth interval. The work flow shown in this paper can easily be extended to other data sets in other plays. The manual approach, on the other hand, can be prohibitively time-consuming.
|File Size||2 MB||Number of Pages||17|
Amaefule, J. O., Altunbay, M., Tiab, D. et al. 1993. Enhanced Reservoir Description: Using Core and Log Data to Identify Hydraulic (Flow) Units and Predict Permeability in Uncored Intervals/Wells. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3–6 October. SPE-26436-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/26436-MS.
Aranibar, A., Saneifar, M., and Heidari, Z. 2013. Petrophysical Rock Typing in Organic-Rich Source Rocks Using Well Logs. Presented at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Denver, 12–14 August. URTeC 1619574. https://doi.org/10.1190/URTeC2013-117.
Ballard, B. D. 2007. Quantitative Mineralogy of Reservoir Rocks Using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy. Presented at the SPE international Student Paper Contest, Anaheim, California, USA, 11–14 November. SPE-113023-STU. https://doi.org/10.2118/113023-STU.
Breyer, J. A., Denne, R., Funk, J. et al. 2013. Stratigraphy and Sedimentary Facies of the Eagle Ford Shale (Cretaceous) Between the Maverick Basin and the San Marcos Arch, Texas. Presented at the AAPG Annual Convention and Exhibition, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 19–22 May.
Bruner, K. and Smosna, R. 2011. A Comparative Study of the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, and Devonian Marcellus Shale, Appalachian
Basin. DOE/NETL-2011/1478, US DOE, April 2011.
Caldwell, C. D. and Johnson, P. G. 2013. Anadarko Woodford Shale: Improving Production by Understanding Lithologies/Mechanical Stratigraphy and Optimizing Completion Design. Oral presentation at the AAPG Education Directorate Woodford Shale Forum, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 11 April 2013.
Callantine, S. 2010. Eagle Ford Shale Play. Investor Report, Chesapeake Energy, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, August 2010.
Chon, T. S., and Park, Y. S. 2008. Self-Organizing Map. In Encyclopedia of Ecology, ed. Sven Erik Jorgensen and Brian D. Fath. Oxford: Academic Press, pp. 3203–3210. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045405-4.00907-1.
CLR. 2010. Anadarko Woodford: The SCOOP, Internal Report, Continental Resources Limited, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Coates, G. R. and Dumanoir, J. L. 1974. A New Approach to Improved Log-Derived Permeability. The Log Analyst (January–February 1974).
Comer, J. B. 2005. Facies Distribution and Hydrocarbon Production Potential of Woodford Shale in the Southern Midcontinent. Presented at the Unconventional Energy Resources in the Southern Midcontinent Symposium, Norman, Oklahoma, USA, Oklahoma Geological Survey, Circular 110, pp. 51–62.
Cortes, C. and Vapnik, V. 1995. Support-Vector Networks. Machine Learning 20 (3): 273–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994018.
Davies, D. K., Williams, B. P. J., and Vessell, R. K. 1993. Reservoir Geometry and Internal Permeability Distribution in Fluvial, Tight, Gas Sandstones, Travis Peak Formation, Texas. SPE Res Eng 8 (1): 7–12. SPE-21850-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/21850-PA.
EOG Resources. 2010. South Texas Eagle Ford. Internal Report. Houston: EOG Resources.
Gupta, N. 2012. Multi-Scale Characterization of the Woodford Shale in West-Central Oklahoma From Scanning Electron Microscope to 3D Seismic. PhD thesis, Oklahoma University, Norman, Oklahoma.
Gupta, N., Rai, C., and Sondergeld, C. 2013. Petrophysical Characterization of Woodford Shale. Petrophysics 54 (4): 368–382. SPWLA-2013-v54n4-A4.
Gupta, I., Rai, C., Sondergeld, C. et al. 2017. Rock Typing in Wolfcamp Formation. Presented at the 58th Annual SPWLA Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 17–21 June. SPWLA-2017-D.
Hotelling, H. 1933. Analysis of a Complex of Statistical Variables Into Principal Components. Journal of Educational Psychology 24: 417–441, 498–520.
Jarvie, D. M., Hill, R. J., Ruble, T. E. et al. 2007. Unconventional Shale-Gas Systems: The Mississippian Barnett Shale of North-Central Texas as One Model for Thermogenic Shale-Gas Assessment. AAPG Bull. 91: 475–499. https://doi.org/10.1306/12190606068.
Kale, S. 2009. Petrophysical Characterization of Barnett Shale Play, MS thesis, Oklahoma University, Norman, Oklahoma, USA.
Kale, S., Rai, C., and Sondergeld, C. 2010. Rock Typing in Gas Shales. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference, Florence, Italy, 19–22 September. SPE 134539-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/134539-MS.
Karastathis A. 2007. Petrophysical Measurements on Tight Gas Shale, MS thesis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA.
Kinley, T. 2008. Hydrocarbon Potential of the Barnett Shale (Mississippian), Delaware Basin, West Texas, and Southeastern New Mexico. AAPG 92: 967–991. https://doi.org/10.1306/03240807121.
Kohonen, T. and Honkela, T. 2007. Kohonen Network. Scholarpedia. https://doi.org/10.4249/scholarpedia.1568.
Law, C. 1999. Evaluating Source Rocks, Chap. 6, AAPG special volumes. In Petroleum Geology/Handbook of Petroleum Geology: Exploring for Oil and Gas Traps, ed. E. A. Beaumont and N. H. Foster. pp. 6-1–6-41.
Li, H., Hart, B., Dawson, M. et al. 2015. Characterizing the Middle Bakken: Laboratory Measurement and Rock Typing of the Middle Bakken Formation. Presented at the Unconventional Technology Conference, San Antonio, Texas, 20–22 July. SPE-178676-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/178676-MS.
MacQueen, J. B. 1967. Some Methods for Classification and Analysis of Multivariate Observations. Proc., 5th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 21 June–18 July 1965. University of California Press. pp. 281–297.
Pittman E. D. 1992. Relationship of Porosity and Permeability to Various Parameters Derived From Mercury Injection—Capillary Pressure Curves for Sandstones. AAPG Bull. 76 (2): 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1306/BDFF87A4-1718-11D7-8645000102C1865D.
Pollastro, R. M., Jarvie, D. M., Hill, R. J. et al. 2007. Geologic Framework of the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Barnett-Paleozoic Total Petroleum System, Bend Arch–Fort Worth Basin, Texas. AAPG Bull. 91 (4): 405–436. https://doi.org/10.1306/10300606008.
Randolph, P. L., Soeder, D. J., and Chowdiah, P. 1984. Porosity and Permeability of Tight Sands. Presented at the Unconventional Gas Recovery Symposium, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 13–15 May. SPE-12836-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/12836-MS.
Rushing, J. A., Newsham, K. E., and Blasingame, T. A. 2008. Rock Typing: Keys to Understanding Productivity in Tight Gas Sands. Presented at the Unconventional Reservoirs Conference, Keystone, Colorado, USA, 10–12 February. SPE-114164-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/114164-MS.
Sarmiento, M. F. R., Ducros, M., Carpentier, B. et al. 2013. Quantitative Evaluation of TOC, Organic Porosity and Gas Retention Distribution in a Gas Shale Play Using Petroleum System Modeling: Application to the Barnett Shale. Marine and Petroleum Geology 45: 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2013.04.003.
Schieber, J. 1996. Early Diagenetic Silica Deposition in Algal Cysts and Spores; A Source of Sand in Black Shales. Journal of Sedimentary Research 66 (1): 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1306/D42682ED-2B26-11D7-8648000102C1865D.
Singh P. 2008. Lithofacies and Sequence Stratigraphic Framework of the Barnett Shale, Northeast Texas. PhD dissertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA.
Slatt, R., Singh P., Borges, G. et al. 2008. Reservoir Characterization of Unconventional Gas Shales: Example From the Barnett Shale, Texas. Presented at the AAPG Annual Convention, San Antonio, Texas, 20–23 April. Search and Discovery Article #30075.
Sondergeld, C. H. and Rai, C. S. 1993. A New Concept of Quantitative Core Characterization. The Leading Edge 12 (7): 774–779. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1436968.
Sondhi, N. 2011. Petrophysical Characterization of the Eagle Ford Shale, MS thesis, Oklahoma University, Norman, Oklahoma, USA.
Sone, H. and Zoback, M. D. 2013. Mechanical Properties of Shale-Gas Reservoir Rocks—Part 2: Ductile Creep, Brittle Strength, and Their Relation to the Elastic Modulus. Geophysics 78 (5): D393–D402. https://doi.org/10.1190/GEO2013-0051.1.
Steinwart, I. and Christmann, A. 2008. Support Vector Machines, Book, Information Science and Statistics.
Thomeer, J. H. 1983. Air Permeability as a Function of Three Pore Network Parameters. J Pet Technol 35 (4): 809–814. SPE-10922-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/10922-PA.
Tian, Y. 2014. Occurrence of Multiple Fluid Phases Across a Basin, in the Same Shale Gas Formation—Eagle Ford Shale Example. MS thesis, Texas A&M, College Station, Texas.
Timur, A. 1968. An Investigation of Permeability, Porosity, and Residual Water Saturation Relationship for Sandstone Reservoirs. The Log Analyst. 9 (4). SPWLA-1968-vIXn4a2.
Tissot, B., P. and Welte, D., H. 1984. Petroleum Formation and Occurrence, second edition. New York: Springer-Verlag, 699 p.
Tuttle, S. 2010. Oil Resource Plays—Examples and Technology. Geological Review, Internal Report, Petrohawk Energy Corporation, Houston, Texas (September 2010).
Walls, J. D. 1982. Tight Gas Sands Permeability, Pore Structure, and Clay. J Pet Technol 34 (11): 2708–2714. SPE-9871-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/9871-PA.
Wang, F. P. and Gale, J. F. W. 2009. Screening Criteria for Shale-Gas Systems: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies. Trans. 59: 779–794.