Petrophysical Characterization of Petrophysical Characterization of the Barnett Shale: Progress Reportthe Barnett Shale: Progress Report
Jeff KaneJeff KaneBureau of Economic GeologyBureau of Economic Geology
PBGSP Annual PBGSP Annual MeetingMeetingFebruary 27-28, 2006February 27-28, 2006
Jeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TXJeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TX
OverviewOverview
• Database constructionDatabase construction• Geophysical log analysis modelGeophysical log analysis model• Texas United Blakely #1Texas United Blakely #1• SummarySummary
Jeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TXJeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TX
Database constructionDatabase construction
• Wireline database:Wireline database:• 7 wells with geochemical data7 wells with geochemical data
• 2 with log data2 with log data• 1 with mineralogy data1 with mineralogy data• 1 with limited P & P data1 with limited P & P data• 1 with capillary pressure data1 with capillary pressure data• 2 with core descriptions2 with core descriptions
Jeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TXJeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TX
Database constructionDatabase construction
• Many of these core data were recently provided by Dan Many of these core data were recently provided by Dan Jarvie of Humble Geochemical Services.Jarvie of Humble Geochemical Services.
Jeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TXJeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TX
Geophysical log modelingGeophysical log modeling
• A quick historical perspectiveA quick historical perspective• Mineralogical model Mineralogical model • Kerogen issuesKerogen issues
Jeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TXJeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TX
Geophysical log modeling – some historyGeophysical log modeling – some history
• Much of the methodology used today to come from work Much of the methodology used today to come from work performed on the T.P. Sims #2 core (ResTech, 1991)performed on the T.P. Sims #2 core (ResTech, 1991)
• This methodology derives from work done earlier on the This methodology derives from work done earlier on the Devonian Shale (GRI, 1989)Devonian Shale (GRI, 1989)
• Few data have been published subsequently.Few data have been published subsequently.
Jeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TXJeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TX
Geophysical log modeling - MineralogyGeophysical log modeling - Mineralogy
Mineralogy distributionW. C. Young #2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Total Clay Quartz K-Feldspar Plagioclase Calcite Dolomite Pyrite Apatite
Volume (%)
Q1 Min Median Max Q3
Jeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TXJeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TX
Geophysical log modeling - KerogenGeophysical log modeling - Kerogen
Kerogen is a wildcard Kerogen is a wildcard • It appears as porosity on logsIt appears as porosity on logs• It has a nominal density of about 1.0 to 1.2 g/cc It has a nominal density of about 1.0 to 1.2 g/cc
(but it is probably more variable)(but it is probably more variable)• It has a hydrogen index of about 0.65 to 0.70 It has a hydrogen index of about 0.65 to 0.70
(water = 1.0)(water = 1.0)
Jeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TXJeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TX
Geophysical log modeling - KerogenGeophysical log modeling - Kerogen
k
Sk C
CSTOCW
)(11 ×−
=
(from Guidry and Olszewski, 1990) where:Wk is the weight of kerogenTOC is the weight fraction of total organic carbon S1 is the weight fraction of free oilCS1
is the weight fraction of carbon in the free oil
Ck is the weight fraction of carbon in the kerogen
Guidry and Olszewski (1990) suggest 0.87 and 0.75 for CS1 and Ck
respectively. Jarvie (1999) recommends a value of 0.83 for CS1.
Jeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TXJeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TX
Geophysical log modeling - KerogenGeophysical log modeling - Kerogen
where:Vk is the volume fraction of kerogenWk is the weight of kerogenB is the bulk densityk is the kerogen density
k
Bkk
WV
×
=
Jeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TXJeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TX
Geophysical log modeling - KerogenGeophysical log modeling - Kerogen
• The preceding is from derived from core data, not log The preceding is from derived from core data, not log datadata
• Initially, correlations have to be developed to estimate Initially, correlations have to be developed to estimate kerogen volume from logskerogen volume from logs
• This work is currently in progressThis work is currently in progress
Jeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TXJeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TX
Geophysical log modeling Geophysical log modeling
• We have a mineralogical model of clay, quartz, calcite, We have a mineralogical model of clay, quartz, calcite, dolomite, pyrite, apatite, kerogen, and fluids (water and dolomite, pyrite, apatite, kerogen, and fluids (water and gas)gas)
• We have a set of logs that have known or estimated We have a set of logs that have known or estimated responses to each of these model pointsresponses to each of these model points
• We can construct a set of equations to describe these We can construct a set of equations to describe these relationships relationships
Jeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TXJeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TX
Geophysical log modeling Geophysical log modeling
• This leads to a set of simultaneous equations that allow This leads to a set of simultaneous equations that allow us to solve for the volumes of the geologic constituents us to solve for the volumes of the geologic constituents presentpresent
• This is fundamentally the same approach used by This is fundamentally the same approach used by programs such as programs such as ELANELAN™ ™ andand OPTIMA™ OPTIMA™
• We use the We use the GeologGeolog™ package ™ package MultiMin™MultiMin™
Jeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TXJeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TX
Overview of what the logs show Overview of what the logs show
Texas Blakely #1 wireline log analysisTexas Blakely #1 wireline log analysis
Jeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TXJeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TX
Texas United Blakely #1Texas United Blakely #1
Jeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TXJeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TX
CaliperIN6 16
Total gamma rayGAPI0 300
Corrected gamma rayGAPI0 300
7100
7200
7300
7400
DEPTHFEET
Potassium%-5 5
ThoriumPPM0 40
UraniumPPM-10 30
Neutron porosityV/V0.3 -0.1
Bulk densityG/C32 3
Shallow focussed logMMHO0.2 2000
Medium inductionOHMM0.2 2000
Deep inductionOHMM0.2 2000
Texas United Blakely #1Texas United Blakely #1
Jeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TXJeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TX
7090 7250Depth (feet)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
2.40
2.45
2.50
2.55
2.60
2.65
2.70
Bulk density (g/c3)
Neutron porosity (v/v)
0.05
0.1
0.15
0 300Total gamma ray (gapi)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
2.40
2.45
2.50
2.55
2.60
2.65
2.70
Bulk density (g/c3)
Neutron porosity (v/v)
0.05
0.1
0.15
Texas United Blakely #1Texas United Blakely #1
Jeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TXJeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TX
0 300Total gamma ray (gapi)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
2.40
2.45
2.50
2.55
2.60
2.65
2.70
Bulk density (g/c3)
Neutron porosity (v/v)
0.05
0.1
0.15
0 7Total organic carbon (wt. %)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
2.40
2.45
2.50
2.55
2.60
2.65
2.70
Bulk density (g/c3)
Neutron porosity (v/v)
0.05
0.1
0.15
Texas United Blakely #1Texas United Blakely #1
Jeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TXJeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TX
CaliperIN6 16
Total gamma rayGAPI0 300
Corrected gamma rayGAPI0 300
7100
7200
7300
7400
DEPTHFEET
Potassium%-5 5
ThoriumPPM0 40
UraniumPPM-10 30
Neutron porosityV/V0.3 -0.1
Bulk densityG/C32 3
Shallow focussed logMMHO0.2 2000
Medium inductionOHMM0.2 2000
Deep inductionOHMM0.2 2000
Texas United Blakely #1Texas United Blakely #1
Jeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TXJeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TX
7090 7250Depth (feet)
2.30
2.40
2.50
2.60
2.70
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total organic carbon (wt. %)
Bulk density (g/c3)7090 7250
Depth (feet)
0 3 6 9 12 1
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total organic carbon (wt. %)
Uranium (ppm)
Texas United Blakely #1Texas United Blakely #1
Jeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TXJeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TX
CaliperIN6 16
Total gamma rayGAPI0 300
Corrected gamma rayGAPI0 300
7100
7200
7300
7400
DEPTHFEET
Potassium%-5 5
ThoriumPPM0 40
UraniumPPM-10 30
Neutron porosityV/V0.3 -0.1
Bulk densityG/C32 3
Shallow focussed logMMHO0.2 2000
Medium inductionOHMM0.2 2000
Deep inductionOHMM0.2 2000
Texas United Blakely #1Texas United Blakely #1
Jeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TXJeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TX
Total gamma RayGAPI0 300
7100
7200
7300
7400
Depthfeet Thorium - Potassium Ratio (smoothed)
0.5 50
Texas United Blakely #1Texas United Blakely #1
Jeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TXJeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TX
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0
2
4
6
8
10
Thorium (ppm)
Potassium (wt. %)
7050 7450Depth
Feldspars and potassium evaporites
Micas including glauconite
Illite
Mix
ed
la
ye
r c
lay
s
Kaolinite
Heavy Thorium bearing minerals
Texas United Blakely #1Texas United Blakely #1
Jeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TXJeffrey A. Kane, Bureau of Economic Geology , PBGSP Annual Meeting, 2/27-28/2006, Austin, TX
SummarySummary
• We have just begun to build an extensive Barnett We have just begun to build an extensive Barnett databasedatabase
• We already have a basic model to analyze the Barnett We already have a basic model to analyze the Barnett from wireline logsfrom wireline logs
• Work to date suggest that logs will be of great value in Work to date suggest that logs will be of great value in providing detailed data on Barnett mineralogy and facies. providing detailed data on Barnett mineralogy and facies. More core-based work is necessary to verify this and More core-based work is necessary to verify this and and refine our initial modeland refine our initial model