Advertisement

Surveys in Geophysics

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 509–541 | Cite as

An Effective Reservoir Parameter for Seismic Characterization of Organic Shale Reservoir

  • Luanxiao Zhao
  • Xuan Qin
  • Jinqiang Zhang
  • Xiwu Liu
  • De-hua Han
  • Jianhua Geng
  • Yineng Xiong
Article

Abstract

Sweet spots identification for unconventional shale reservoirs involves detection of organic-rich zones with abundant porosity. However, commonly used elastic attributes, such as P- and S-impedances, often show poor correlations with porosity and organic matter content separately and thus make the seismic characterization of sweet spots challenging. Based on an extensive analysis of worldwide laboratory database of core measurements, we find that P- and S-impedances exhibit much improved linear correlations with the sum of volume fraction of organic matter and porosity than the single parameter of organic matter volume fraction or porosity. Importantly, from the geological perspective, porosity in conjunction with organic matter content is also directly indicative of the total hydrocarbon content of shale resources plays. Consequently, we propose an effective reservoir parameter (ERP), the sum of volume fraction of organic matter and porosity, to bridge the gap between hydrocarbon accumulation and seismic measurements in organic shale reservoirs. ERP acts as the first-order factor in controlling the elastic properties as well as characterizing the hydrocarbon storage capacity of organic shale reservoirs. We also use rock physics modeling to demonstrate why there exists an improved linear correlation between elastic impedances and ERP. A case study in a shale gas reservoir illustrates that seismic-derived ERP can be effectively used to characterize the total gas content in place, which is also confirmed by the production well.

Keywords

Organic shale Organic matter Porosity Effective reservoir parameter Reservoir characterization 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. XDA14010203), Fluids and DHI consortium of the Colorado School of Mines and University of Houston, the Foundation of State Key Laboratory of Shale Oil and Gas Enrichment Mechanisms and Effective Development, National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41504087), and Innovative Program of Shanghai Municipal Education Commission. We thank SINOPEC for permission to show the well-logging and seismic data. The database for this paper is available by contacting the corresponding author at zhaoluanxiao@tongji.edu.cn.

References

  1. Abousleiman Y, Tran M, Hoang S, Bobko C, Ortega A, Ulm F (2007) Geomechanics field and laboratory characterization of the Woodford Shale: the next gas play. SPE paper 110120Google Scholar
  2. Ahmadov R (2011) Microtextural, elastic and transport properties of source rocks. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  3. Alfred D, Vernik L (2012) A new petrophysical model for organic-rich shales. 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, SPWLA, 16–20Google Scholar
  4. Allan AM, Vanorio T, Dahl JEP (2014) Pyrolysis-induced P-wave velocity anisotropy in organic-rich shales. Geophysics 79(2):C73–C88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandyopadhyay K (2009) Seismic anisotropy: geological causes and its implications to reservoir geophysics. Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  6. Bandyopadhyay K, Sain R, Liu E, Harris C, Martinez A, Payne M, Zhu Y (2012) Rock property inversion in organic-rich shale: uncertainties, ambiguities, and pitfalls. In: 82nd annual international meeting, SEG, expanded abstracts, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  7. Bello H, Barzola G, Portis D, Tinnin B, Handke M, Clemons K (2013) Multiuse of seismic and attribute mapping for field appraisal and development in the Eagle Ford Shale: mapping TOC, porosity, and seal integrity. In: Unconventional resource technology conference, Denver, Colorado, pp 278–286Google Scholar
  8. Best ME, Katsube TJ (1995) Shale permeability and its significance in hydrocarbon exploration. Lead Edge 14:165–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bredesen K, Jensen EH, Johansen TA, Avseth P (2015) Seismic reservoir and source-rock analysis using inverse rock-physics modeling: a Norwegian Sea demonstration. Lead Edge 34(11):1350–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Broadhead M, Cheshire SG, Hayton S (2016) The effect of TOC on acoustic impedance for a Middle Eastern source rock. Lead Edge 35(3):258–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buland A, Omre H (2003) Bayesian linearized AVO inversion. Geophysics 68(1):185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ciz R, Shapiro S (2007) Generalization of Gassmann equations for porous media saturated with a solid material. Geophysics 72(6):A75–A79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davie M, Zhu Y, Rehkopf O, Bandyopadhyay K (2012) Characterization of shale gas reservoirs using seismic and well data at Horn River, Canada. In: 82nd annual international meeting, SEG, expanded abstracts, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  14. Gasparik M, Bertier P, Gensterblum Y, Ghanizadeh A, Krooss BM, Littke R (2014) Geological controls on the methane storage capacity in organic-rich shales. Int J Coal Geol 123:34–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guo T (2015) The Fuling Shale gas field—a highly productive Silurian gas shale with high thermal maturity and complex evolution history, southeastern Sichuan Basin, China. Interpretation 3(2):SJ25–SJ34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hart BS, Macquaker J, Taylor KG (2013) Mudstone (“shale”) depositional and diagenetic processes: implications for seismic analyses of source-rock reservoirs. Interpretation 1(1):B7–B26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hornby BE, Schwartz LM, Hudson JA (1994) Anisotropic effective-medium modeling of the elastic properties of shales. Geophysics 59:1570–1583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hu R, Vernik L, Nayvelt L, Dicman A (2015) Seismic inversion for organic richness and fracture gradient in unconventional reservoirs: Eagle Ford Shale, Texas. Lead Edge 34(1):80–82, 84Google Scholar
  19. Jarvie D (2004) Evaluation of hydrocarbon generation and storage in Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, Texas. The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology/PTTC 116Google Scholar
  20. Jiang M, Spikes KT (2013) Estimation of reservoir properties of the Haynesville Shale by using rock-physics modelling and grid searching. Geophys J Int 195(1):315–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jiang Z, Tang X, Cheng L, Li Z, Zhang Y, Bai Y, Yuan Y, Hao J (2015) Characterization and origin of the Silurian Wufeng–Longmaxi Formation shale multiscale heterogeneity in southeastern Sichuan Basin, China. Interpretation 3(2):SJ61–SJ74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnston JE, Christensen NI (1995) Seismic anisotropy of shales. J Geophys Res 100:5991–6003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loucks RG, Reed RM, Ruppel SC, Jarvie DM (2009) Morphology, genesis, and distribution of nanometer-scale pores in siliceous mudstones of the Mississippian Barnett shale. J Sediment Res 79:848–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Loucks RG, Reed RM, Ruppel SC, Hammes U (2012) Spectrum of pore types and networks in mudrocks and a descriptive classification for matrix-related mudrock pores. AAPG Bull 96:1071–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lucier AM, Hofmann R, Bryndzia LT (2011) Evaluation of variable gas saturation on acoustic log data from the Haynesville Shale gas play, NW Louisiana, USA. Lead Edge 30:300–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Milliken KL, Rudnicki M, Awwiller DN, Zhang T (2013) Organic matter-hosted pore system, Marcellus Formation (Devonian), Pennsylvania. AAPG Bull 97(2):177–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Modica CJ, Lapierre SG (2012) Estimation of kerogen porosity in source rocks as a function of thermal transformation: example from the Mowry Shale in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming. AAPG Bull 96:87–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moyano B, Spikes K, Johansen T, Mondol N (2012) Modeling compaction effects on the elastic properties of clay–water composites. Geophysics 77(5):D171–D183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ogiesoba O, Hammes U (2014) Seismic-attribute identification of brittle and TOC-rich zones within the Eagle Ford Shale, Dimmit County, South Texas. J Pet Explor Prod Technol 4:133–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Okiongbo KR, Aplin AC, Larter SR (2005) Changes in type II kerogen density as a function of maturity: evidence from the Kimmeridge clay formation. Energy Fuels 19:2495–2499Google Scholar
  31. Ouadfeul S, Aliouane L (2016) Total organic carbon estimation in shale-gas reservoirs using seismic genetic inversion with an example from the Barnett Shale. Lead Edge 35(9):790–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ougier-Simonin A, Renard F, Boehm C, Vidal-Gilbert S (2016) Microfracturing and microporosity in shales. Earth Sci Rev 162:198–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Passey QR, Bohacs KM, Esch WL, Klimentidis R, Sinha S (2010) From oil-prone source rock to gas-producing shale reservoir—geologic and petrophysical characterization of unconventional shale-gas reservoirs. Presented at the SPE, Paper 131350Google Scholar
  34. Prasad M (2012) Shales and imposters: understanding shales, organics, and self-resourcing rocks. Fall 2012 SEG/AAPG Distinguished LecturerGoogle Scholar
  35. Qin X, Han DH, Zhao L (2014) Rock physics modeling of organic-rich shales with different maturity levels. In: 84th annual international meeting, SEG, expanded abstracts, pp 2952–2957Google Scholar
  36. Ross DJK, Bustin RM (2009) The importance of shale composition and pore structure upon storage potential of shale gas reservoirs. Mar Pet Geol 26:916–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sayers CM, Guo S, Silva J (2015) Sensitivity of the elastic anisotropy and seismic reflection amplitude of the Eagle Ford Shale to the presence of kerogen. Geophys Prospect 63:151–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shitrit O, Hatzor YH, Feinstein S, Palchik V, Vinegar HJ (2016) Effect of kerogen on rock physics of immature organic-rich chalks. Mar Pet Geol 73:392–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sone H (2012) Mechanical properties of shale gas reservoir rocks and its relation to the in situ stress variation observed in shale gas reservoirs. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  40. Sone H, Zoback MD (2013) Mechanical properties of shale gas reservoir rocks—part 1: static and dynamic elastic properties and anisotropy. Geophysics 78(5):D381–D392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Talu O, Myers AL (2001) Reference potentials for adsorption of helium, argon, methane, and krypton in high-silica zeolites. Colloids Surf A 187–188:83–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thomsen L (1986) Weak elastic anisotropy. Geophysics 51(10):1954–1966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Verma S, Roy A, Perez R, Marfurt KJ (2012) Mapping high frackability and high TOC zones in the Barnett Shale: supervised probabilistic neural network vs. unsupervised multi-attribute Kohonen SOM. In: 82nd annual international meeting, SEG, expanded abstracts, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  44. Vernik L (1993) Microcrack-induced versus intrinsic elastic anisotropy in mature HC-source shales. Geophysics 58:1703–1706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vernik L, Landis C (1996) Elastic anisotropy of source rocks: implications for hydrocarbon generation and primary migration. AAPG Bull 80:531–544Google Scholar
  46. Vernik L, Liu X (1997) Velocity anisotropy in shales: a petrophysical study. Geophysics 62:521–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vernik L, Milovac J (2011) Rock physics of organic shales. Lead Edge 30:318–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wang Z (2002) Seismic anisotropy in sedimentary rocks, part 1: a single-plug laboratory method. Geophysics 67(5):1415–1422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wang FP, Reed RM (2009) Pore networks and fluid flow in Gas Shales. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Paper No. SPE-124253, 8Google Scholar
  50. Wu X, Uden R, Chapman M (2016) Shale anisotropic elastic modelling and seismic reflections. J Seism Explor 25(6):527–542Google Scholar
  51. Yenugu M (2014) Elastic, microstructural and geochemical characterization of kerogen maturity for shales. Ph.D. dissertation, University of HoustonGoogle Scholar
  52. Yew CH, Weng X (2015) Mechanics of hydraulic fracturing, 2nd edn. Gulf, HoustonGoogle Scholar
  53. Zargari S, Prasad M, Mba KC, Mattson ED (2013) Organic maturity, elastic properties and textural characteristics of self resourcing reservoirs. Geophysics 78(4):D223–D235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zargari S, Wilkinson TM, Parckar CE, Prasad M (2016) Effect of thermal maturity on elastic properties of kerogen. Geophysics 81:M1–M6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhang T, Ellis GS, Ruppel SC, Milliken K, Yang R (2012) Effect of organic-matter type and thermal maturity on methane adsorption in shale-gas systems. Org Geochem 47:120–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhao L, Geng J, Cheng J, Han D, Guo T (2014) Probabilistic lithofacies prediction from prestack seismic data in a heterogeneous carbonate reservoir. Geophysics 79(5):M25–M34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhao L, Qin X, Han D, Geng J, Yang Z, Cao H (2016) Rock-physics modeling for the elastic properties of organic shale at different maturity stages. Geophysics 81(5):D527–D541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zhu Y, Liu E, Martinez A, Payne MA, Harris CE (2011) Understanding geophysical responses of shale-gas plays. Lead Edge 30:332–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Marine GeologyTongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Department of Earth and Atmospheric SciencesUniversity of HoustonHoustonUSA
  3. 3.State Key Laboratory of Shale Oil and Gas Enrichment Mechanisms and Effective DevelopmentBeijingChina
  4. 4.SINOPEC Petroleum Exploration and Production Research InstituteBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations