Carr WVU Marcellus Logging
-
Upload
pahlawankemaleman -
Category
Documents
-
view
6 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Carr WVU Marcellus Logging
Log AnalysisLog AnalysisUsing Microsoft ExcelUsing Microsoft Excel®®
Focus on the MarcellusFocus on the MarcellusTim Carr
West Virginia University
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
My Observations
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
BackgroundBackground Costs Are Becoming More Significant
High Land Costs More Moderate Commodity Price High Capital Costs
Horizontal Wells & Large Multi-Stage Fracture Stimulations
Key Reservoir Parameters Thickness Unit Definitions (Formation Bed) Lithology Thermal Maturity Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Gas Fraction (Adsorbed and Free) Permeability
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
AVERAGE WELL HEAD PRICEAVERAGE WELL HEAD PRICE
$2.95 per MMBtu 2002
$6.25 per MMBtu 2007
$7.96 per MMBtu 2008
$3.71 per MMBtu 2009
$4.33 per MMBtu 2010
$4.04 per MM Btu on 11/16/2010
EIA (http://www.eia.gov )
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Recent Growth in Natural Gas Production, Lower 48 States, Attributed Largely to Unconventional Gas
(EIA, 2010)
40
45
50
55
60
65
Billi
on C
ubic
Fee
t per
Day
Date
Katrina & Rita
9 % Growth Rate
0 % Growth Rate
40
45
50
55
60
65
Billi
on C
ubic
Fee
t per
Day
Date
Katrina & Rita
9 % Growth Rate
0 % Growth Rate
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Natural Gas Supply by source, 1990-2030 (trillion cubic feet)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2009
Unconventional
AlaskaNet imports
Associated-dissolved
Non-associated offshore
Non-associated conventional
History Projection
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Marcellus Shale Resource
1 Potential Gas Committee, June 18, 20092 U.S. Energy Information Administration3 Marcellus Proved Reserves < 1 Tcf
500
256
220
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Tc
f
Ch
esap
eake
En
erg
y
Po
ten
tia
l G
as C
om
mit
tee
Ran
ge
Res
ou
rces
Marcellus Resource
U.S. Resources1
2,080 Tcf
U.S. Proved Reserves2
244 TcfMarcellus Shale Resource3
256 Tcf
Annual U.S. Consumption23 Tcf
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Marcellus Shale Production Forecasts
Sources: “An Emerging Giant: Prospects and Economic Impacts of Developing the Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Play.” T. Considine, R. Watson, R. Entler, J. Sparks, The Pennsylvania State University, College of Earth & Mineral Sciences, Department of Energy and Mineral Engineering. July 24, 2009.
Integrated Resource Plan for Connecticut. The Brattle Group. January 1, 2010. (Wood Mackenzie)
0.5
2.1
4.5
0.5
2.9
3.9
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
2010 2015 2020
Bc
f/d
Wood Mackenzie
Penn State
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Marcellus Shale Production Outlook
Source: Williams Partners L.P.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
20
12
20
14
20
16
20
18
20
20
20
22
20
24
20
26
20
28
20
30
20
32
20
34
20
36
20
38
Bc
f /
d
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Unconventional Resource ProductionTechnology, Economies of Scale, Integration
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Unconventional Resource ProductionTechnology, Economies of Scale, Integration
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Gas Shale CharacteristicsGas Shale Characteristics Very High Gamma Ray Activity (Kerogen Content)
High Uranium High Resistivity – Low Water Saturation Relatively Low Clay Content
Smectite to Illite Transition Low Bulk Density (Kerogen Content) Kerogen - Petrophysical Characteristics
Bulk Density 1.0 to 1.2 g/cm3 U 0.18 to 0.24 Neutron Porosity 50 to 65 p.u. Gamma Ray Activity 500 to 4000 API Sonic Slowness 160 µs/ft
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Three ApproachesThree Approaches Logs to be used
Bulk Density g/cm3 Density Porosity Percent or Decimal Neutron Porosity Percent or Decimal Photo-Electric Barns Gamma Ray API Units
Clay Typing – Related to Deposition & Diagensis Spectral Gamma Ray Logs
Uranium (PPM), Thorium (PPM) and Potassium (Percent) Compositional Lithology Logs
Rhomaa-Umaa Computational Analysis (Linear)
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
SpreadsheetsSpreadsheets Ubiquitous and Low Cost Provide Some Hands-On Understanding of the Process Allow Easy Export to Higher End Packages Use Basic Logs Clay Typing
Estimate Uranium Content from Full Spectrum Gamma-Ray Logs
Compositional Lithology Logs Rhomaa-Umaa Computational Analysis (Linear)
Organic Content (Next Time) Saturation (Next Time)
Heavily Modified Archie
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Gamma-Ray Log AnalysisGamma-Ray Log Analysis
U
K
Th
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Gamma-Ray SpectrumGamma-Ray Spectrum
Uranium
Thorium
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Gamma-Ray SpectrumGamma-Ray Spectrum
SchlumbergerLog Interpretation Principles1989, Page 3-7
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Black Shale Composite (BSC) Quinby-Hunt et al. (1989)
Th 11.6 ppm, U 15.2 ppm, K 2.99%
GR = 215.8 API units
North American Shale Composite (NASC) Gromet et al. (1984)
Th 12.3 ppm, U 2.66 ppm, K 3.2%
GR = 121.7 API units
Geochemists’ concept of typical Geochemists’ concept of typical shale and black shaleshale and black shale
API unit multipliers: Th ppm 4 : U ppm 8 : K% 16
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Typical Spectral Gamma-Ray Typical Spectral Gamma-Ray Log Presentation FormatLog Presentation Format
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Potassium-Thorium Crossplot Potassium-Thorium Crossplot with with
Generalized Mineral Fields (after Schlumberger)Generalized Mineral Fields (after Schlumberger)
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Potassium-Thorium Crossplot Potassium-Thorium Crossplot with with
Generalized Mineral Fields (after Schlumberger)Generalized Mineral Fields (after Schlumberger)
Increasing Th/K Ratio
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Thorium and Uranium ConcentrationThorium and Uranium Concentrationandand
Redox Potential Redox Potential
Adams and Weaver (1958)
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Gamma-Ray and
Spectral Ratio LogsPermian – Cretaceous
Central Kansas
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Photo-Electric and Spectral Gamma RayPhoto-Electric and Spectral Gamma Ray
Schlumberger, Log Interpretation Principles 1989, Page 6-4
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Photo-Electric and Spectral Gamma RayPhoto-Electric and Spectral Gamma Ray
Schlumberger, Log Interpretation Principles 1989, Page 6-4
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Outside Shale
Upper Limestone
Core Shale
Middle Limestone
Outside Shale
Highstand - Regressive systems tract
exposure surface with paleosol
Condensed section (highstand)
Transgressive systems tract
flooding surface
Lowstand deposits (terrestrial)
Idealized Kansas Pennsylvanian CyclothemIdealized Kansas Pennsylvanian Cyclothem
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Depth (feet)
0 150API unitsGamma Ray
SGRCGR
1400
-10 30Uranium ppm0 40Thorium ppm 0 10Potassium %
Th U
K
Springhill Ls
Vilas Sh
Captain Creek
Eudora Sh
Stoner Ls
Rock Lake Sh
Hickory CreekMerriam
0
Conoco Harrison #1 C-SW-NW 33-11S-10E Wabaunsee County, Kansas
Spectral Gamma-Ray Log Lansing Group, Wabaunsee County, Kansas
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Chestnut Drive SectionChestnut Drive SectionSpectral Gamma Ray ResponseSpectral Gamma Ray Response
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Devonian Shale AnalysisDevonian Shale Analysis0 200
Gamma Ray
200 400
Gamma Ray
3 0
Bulk Density
0 80
Uranium
HARRELL
TULLY
MAHANTANGO
MARCELLUS
ONONDAGA
ONONDAGA_BASE
67
05
67
20
67
35
67
50
67
65
67
80
67
95
68
10
68
25
68
40
68
55
68
70
68
85
69
00
69
15
69
30
69
45
69
60
69
75
69
90
LogDepth(ft)
LogDepth(ft)
6685 6685
6700 6700
6715 6715
6730 6730
6745 6745
6760 6760
6775 6775
6790 6790
6805 6805
6820 6820
6835 6835
6850 6850
6865 6865
6880 6880
6895 6895
6910 6910
6925 6925
6940 6940
6955 6955
6970 6970
6985 6985
API
API
PPM
G/CC
HS=1
PETRA 10/20/2009 12:03:52 AM (Type log Template.CSP)
Track 1 Track
HarrellHarrell
MahantangoMahantango
TullyTully
MarcellusMarcellus
OnondagaOnondaga
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Devonian Shale: Devonian Shale: Oxidizing and Reducing ConditionsOxidizing and Reducing Conditions
• Reducing Vs. Oxidizing conditions determined by Th/U
Oxidizing
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Devonian Shale: Clay TypeDevonian Shale: Clay Type
• Clay type can be determined from Th/K
•Illite-Pink Smectite-Green
•Illite can increase porosity by 4%
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Wells 1 & 3Wells 1 & 3
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Wells 1 & 3Wells 1 & 3
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Well 2Well 2
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Project 1Project 1
Make sure you open an LAS File with Notepad Import a LAS File to EXCEL
Well 3.LAS
Open Spectral Gamma Ray TemplateWell 1.LAS
• Marcellus (7375’-7562’)
Well 2.LAS• Marcellus (7359’-7501’)
Create & Examine PlotsWhat is the difference in the two wells
http://www.geo.wvu.edu/~tcarr/PTTC_11_2010
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Open with NotepadOpen with Notepad
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Importing a LAS File to EXCELImporting a LAS File to EXCEL
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Importing a LAS File to EXCELImporting a LAS File to EXCEL
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Importing a LAS File to EXCELImporting a LAS File to EXCEL
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Introduction to Porosity LogsIntroduction to Porosity Logs
Porosity Logs DO NOT Directly Measure PorosityAcoustic (Sonic) Logs Measure Wave Travel
TimeDensity Logs Measure Formation Bulk DensityNeutron Logs Measure Formation Hydrogen
Content
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Neutron Log ApplicationsNeutron Log Applications
Porosity Lithology with Density and/or Sonic Gas Indicator Clay Content Correlation Cased Hole
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Neutron Tool BackgroundNeutron Tool Background Outgrowth of Work by Italian Physicists (1935)
Slowing down and stopping of neutrons by a hydrogen rich material (e.g., water). Radioactive Source of High Energy Neutrons
Americium and Beryllium Fairly Shallow Zone of Investigation
~ 6 inches (Flushed Zone (Rxo) in most cases) Neutrons lose energy each time they collide with nuclei as they travel through
the formation Greatest loss in energy when neutrons collide with nuclei of a similar mass
• Hydrogen atoms As the neutrons slow they can be captured and emit a gamma ray.
Reduction in Neutron Flux (Increased Gamma Rays) is largely controlled by concentration of hydrogen in the formation. Water (Oil) Filled Porosity in Flushed Zone of Clean Units Clays
Lithology Effect Hydrocarbon Gas Effect
Depress apparent neutron porosity
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
The Neutron The Neutron Porosity ToolPorosity Tool
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Historical Development of Neutron LoggingHistorical Development of Neutron Logging
Common Curve Mnemonics ΦN, PHIN, NPHI Usually Tracks 2 or 3 and dashed line.
Units Counts %, Decimal Fraction
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Neutron Energy LosesNeutron Energy Loses
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Density Log ApplicationsDensity Log Applications
Porosity Lithology with PE, Neutron and/or Sonic Gas Indicator Synthetic Seismograms with Sonic Rock Properties with Sonic
Poisson’s Ratio, Young’s Modulus
Clay Content Borehole Conditions (Size and Rugosity)
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Density Tool BackgroundDensity Tool Background Source of High Energy Gamma Rays
Cesium 137 Shallow Zone of Investigation
<2 inches Gamma rays interact with the electron clouds of the atoms they encounter, with a
reduction in the gamma ray flux, which is measured by both a near and far detector. Higher Energy Range Affected by Compton Scattering Reduction is a function of the electron density of the formation Number of Electrons Matched by the Number of Protons In Most Cases Z/A = 0.5
• Z - Atomic Number• A – Atomic Mass
Two Density Values Bulk Density (RhoB or ρb) – Measured by Logging Tool – Solid + Fluid
• DEN, ZDEN Matrix Density (ρma) – Density of the Rock that has no Porosity
Hydrocarbon Gas Effect Enhances apparent density porosity
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
The The Formation Formation Density ToolDensity Tool
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Density PorosityDensity Porosity
ΦD = (ρma – ρb) / (ρma – ρfluid) DPHI, PHID, DPOR
Sandstone 2.644 gm/cm3
Limestone 2.710 gm/cm3
Dolomite 2.877 gm/cm3
Anhydrite 2.960 gm/cm3
Halite 2.040 gm/cm3
Freshwater 1.0 gm/cm3
Saltwater ~1.15 gm/cm3
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Question
Why does ΦN read much higher Than ΦD in the red boxed area?
What are the general lithologiesin this well?
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Photo Electric PPhoto Electric Pee Tool Tool Lithology with Density, Neutron and/or Sonic Supplementary Measurement of the Density Tool
1970’s Onward Lower Energy Range Gamma Rays Affected by Photoelectric
EffectLogged Value is a function of Z - Atomic Number
• Pe = (Z/10)3.6
• Barns per electron
Only mild affect of Pore Volume and Fluid/Gas ContentQuartz = 1.81 BarnsDolomite = 3.14 BarnsCalcite = 5.08 Barns
Pe, PE, PEF
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Photoelectric factor logPhotoelectric factor log
0 5 10
10%
20%
30% porosity
coal
anhydrite
quartz dolomite calcite
kaolinitesmectite
illite chloritePe
barns/electron
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Compositional AnalysisCompositional Analysis
Combing More Than Two Logs
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Compositional AnalysisCompositional Analysis
Determine LithologyGraphic PlotsComputation
Identification and Semi-Quantitative Estimates
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Porosity Log CombinationsPorosity Log Combinations
Single Porosity MeasurementLithology is Specified for Correct Porosity
• Choice of Matrix Value
Two Porosity Measurements Two Lithologies can be Predicted along with Porosity
Three Porosity Measurements Three Lithologies can be Predicted along with Porosity
Greater the number of Measurements the Greater the Complexity of the Lithology that can be Estimated
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
2 Logs
2 Minerals
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Dolomitic-Limestone System
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Three-Measurement Cross-Plot
Three Mineral Matrix Can Be Determined Usually Reduce From 3-D to 2-D
Collapse the 3 measurements to two axes with common denominator
M-N Plots Axis 1 – Sonic and DensityAxis 2 – Neutron and DensityProblem of Density and Sonic being Correlated
Addition of Pe in Newer Methods
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
M-N Cross Plot
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
M – N CrossplotM – N Crossplot Remove the effect of pore fluid
Usually drilling fluid
Combine Sonic and Density Logs (M)
M = (∆tfluid – ∆tmatrix) / (ρmatrix – ρfluid)
Combine Neutron and Density
N = (Φnfluid – Φn matrix) / (ρmatrix – ρfluid)
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
M-N Cross PlotM-N Cross Plot
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
RHOmaa – Umaa CrossplotRHOmaa – Umaa Crossplot
Mineral Identification (MID) Plots Apparent Matrix Density RHOmaa
Density and Neutron
Apparent Matrix Photoelectric Cross Section UmaaDensity, Neutron and Photoelectric Effect
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Apparent Matrix Density Apparent Matrix Density RHOmaaRHOmaa
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Photoelectric (PE) FactorPhotoelectric (PE) Factor
0 5 10
10%
20%
30% porosity
coal
anhydrite
quartz dolomite calcite
kaolinitesmectite
illite chloritePe
barns/electron
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Volumetric Photoelectric Absorption Volumetric Photoelectric Absorption U/cmU/cm33
The photoelectric absorption index (Pe) is measured in units of barns per electron. In order to linearize its relation with composition, the variable must be converted to a volumetric photoelectric absorption index (U) with units of barns per cc
and is approximated by:
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Volumetric Photoelectric Absorption Volumetric Photoelectric Absorption U of the matrixU of the matrix
This is the volumetric photoelectric absorption coefficient of the zone (matrix plus fluid). The hypothetical volumetric photoelectric absorption coefficient of the matrix is UMAA.
or approximated by
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Umaa Values (Apparent Umaa Values (Apparent )𝜙)𝜙
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
RHOmaaRHOmaa
UmaaUmaa
PlotPlot
Pyrite
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Shale CharacterizationShale Characterization
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
2 Logs
2 Minerals
Computational AnalysisComputational Analysis
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Computational AnalysisComputational Analysis
CV=L
V = C-1L
C - matrix of the log responses of the components V - vector of the component proportions L - vector of the log readings
To Solve for V need the inverse of the componentmatrix
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Log response equations:
Rewritten as matrices:
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
The compositional solution vector is then given by pre-multiplying the log response vector by the inverse of the coefficient matrix
We are Saved - Easily computed in Excel
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Compositional Analysis
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Project 2Project 2
Use Parameters From Appendix B Open Compositional Template
Load in Separate Template Well 1.LAS
• Marcellus (7375’-7562’)
• Onondaga (7562.5’ 7578’)
• Why are data points outside the Rhomaa-Umaa TriangleLoad in Separate Template Well 2.LAS
• Marcellus (7359’-7501’)
• Onondaga (7501.5’ 7516’)
• Why are data points outside the Rhomaa-Umaa Triangle Create Computational Plots
What is the difference in the two wells
http://www.geo.wvu.edu/~tcarr/PTTC_11_2010
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
My Observations
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Tim CarrPhone: 304.293.9660Email: [email protected]