Carr WVU Marcellus Logging

Log Analysis
Using Microsoft Excel

Focus on the Marcellus
Tim Carr
West Virginia University
My Observations
West Virginia University, November 17, 2010
Background
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
AVERAGE WELL HEAD PRICE

$2.95 per MMBtu 2002
$4.04 per MM Btu on 11/16/2010
EIA (http://www.eia.gov )
Recent Growth in Natural Gas Production, Lower 48 States,

Attributed Largely to Unconventional Gas
(EIA, 2010)
Natural Gas Supply by source,

1990-2030 (trillion cubic feet)
History
Projection
Unconventional
Net imports
Alaska
Non-associated offshore
Associated-dissolv
ed
Non-associated conventional
Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2009
Marcellus Shale Resource

600
500
Marcellus
Resource
500
U.S. Resources
2,080 Tcf
100
220
Range Resources
200
256
Potential Gas Committee
300
Chesapeake Energy
Tcf
400
Potential Gas Committee, June 18, 2009

U.S. Energy Information Administration
3
Marcellus Proved Reserves < 1 Tcf
1
2
U.S. Proved
Reserves
244 Tcf
2
Marcellus
Shale Resource
256 Tcf
Annual U.S.
Consumption
23 Tcf
Marcellus Shale Production Forecasts

5.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
Wood Mackenzie
3.9
Penn State
3.5
2.9
Bcf/d
3.0
2.5
2.1
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
2010
2015
2020
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)
Marcellus Shale Production Outlook

18
16
14
Bcf / d
12
10
8
6
4
2
Source: Williams Partners L.P.
2038
2036
2034
2032
2030
2028
2026
2024
2022
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
Unconventional Resource Production

Technology, Economies of Scale, Integration
Unconventional Resource Production

Technology, Economies of Scale, Integration
Gas 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 s/ft
Three 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)
Spreadsheets
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
Gamma-Ray Log Analysis
Th
K
Gamma-Ray Spectrum
Uranium
Thorium
Gamma-Ray Spectrum
Schlumberger
Log Interpretation Principles
1989, Page 3-7
Geochemists concept of typical

shale and black shale
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
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
API unit multipliers: Th ppm 4 : U ppm 8 : K% 16
Typical Spectral Gamma-Ray

Log Presentation Format
Potassium-Thorium Crossplot
with
Generalized Mineral Fields (after Schlumberger)
Potassium-Thorium Crossplot
with
Generalized Mineral Fields (after Schlumberger)
In
cr
ea
sin
Th
/K
Ra
t io
Thorium and Uranium Concentration

and
Redox Potential
Adams and Weaver (1958)

Gamma-Ray
and
Spectral Ratio Logs
Permian Cretaceous
Central Kansas
Photo-Electric and Spectral Gamma Ray
Schlumberger, Log Interpretation Principles 1989, Page 6-4
Photo-Electric and Spectral Gamma Ray
Schlumberger, Log Interpretation Principles 1989, Page 6-4
Idealized Kansas Pennsylvanian Cyclothem

Outside
Shale
exposure surface
with paleosol
Upper
Limestone
Highstand Regressive
systems tract
Core
Shale
Condensed section
(highstand)
Middle
Limestone
Outside
Shale
Transgressive
systems tract
flooding surface
Lowstand deposits
(terrestrial)
Spectral Gamma-Ray Log

Lansing Group, Wabaunsee County, Kansas
0
Gamma Ray
API units
150
-10
Depth
(feet)
1400
CGR
SGR
Thorium ppm
40 0
Potassium %
Uranium ppm
0
Th
10
30
Rock Lake
Sh
U
K
Stoner
Ls
Eudora Sh
Captain Creek
Vilas Sh
Springhill
Ls
Hickory Creek
Merriam
Conoco Harrison #1 C-SW-NW 33-11S-10E

Wabaunsee County, Kansas
Chestnut Drive Section

Spectral Gamma Ray Response
Devonian Shale Analysis

Track
Track 1
Gamma Ray
200
Log
Depth(ft)
6685
API
Gamma Ray
API
400 0
Uranium
PPM
80
200 3
Bulk Density
G/CC
Log
Depth(ft)
6685
Harrell
Tully
HARRELL
6700
70
6700
72
6715
6715
6730
73
6730
TULLY
6745
75
6745
6760
76
6760
Mahantango
MAHANTANGO
78
6775
6790
79
6790
6775
6805
81
6805
6820
82
6820
6835
84
6835
6850
85
6850
6865
87
6865
6880
88
6880
Marcellus
MARCELLUS
6895
90
6895
6910
91
6910
6925
93
6925
6940
94
6940
Onondaga
ONONDAGA
96
6955
6970
97
6970
HS=1
ONONDAGA_BASE
6985
99
6985
PETRA 10/20/2009 12:03:52 AM (Type log Template.CSP)
6955
Devonian Shale:
Oxidizing and Reducing Conditions
Oxidizing
Reducing Vs.
Oxidizing
conditions
determined by
Th/U
Devonian Shale: Clay Type

Clay type can be
determined from
Th/K
Illite-Pink
Smectite-Green
Illite can increase
porosity by 4%
Wells 1 & 3
Wells 1 & 3
Well 2
Project 1
http://www.geo.wvu.edu/~tcarr/PTTC_11_2010
Make sure you open an LAS File with Notepad

Import a LAS File to EXCEL
Well 3.LAS
Open Spectral Gamma Ray Template

Well 1.LAS
Marcellus (7375-7562)
Well 2.LAS
Create & Examine Plots

What is the difference in the two wells
Open with Notepad
Importing a LAS File to EXCEL
Introduction to Porosity Logs

Porosity Logs DO NOT Directly Measure
Porosity
Acoustic (Sonic) Logs Measure Wave Travel Time
Density Logs Measure Formation Bulk Density
Neutron Logs Measure Formation Hydrogen
Content
Neutron Log Applications
Porosity
Lithology with Density and/or Sonic
Gas Indicator
Clay Content
Correlation
Cased Hole
Neutron 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 (R xo) 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
The Neutron
Porosity Tool
Historical Development of Neutron Logging
Common Curve Mnemonics

N, PHIN, NPHI
Usually Tracks 2 or 3 and dashed line.
Units
Counts
%, Decimal Fraction
Neutron Energy Loses
Density Log Applications
Porosity
Lithology with PE, Neutron and/or Sonic
Gas Indicator
Synthetic Seismograms with Sonic
Rock Properties with Sonic
Poissons Ratio, Youngs Modulus
Clay Content
Borehole Conditions (Size and Rugosity)
Density 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 b) Measured by Logging Tool Solid + Fluid
DEN, ZDEN
Matrix Density (ma) Density of the Rock that has no Porosity
Hydrocarbon Gas Effect

Enhances apparent density porosity
The
Formation
Density Tool
Density Porosity
D = (ma b) / (ma fluid)
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
Question
Why does N read
much higher
Than D in the red boxed
area?
What are the general
lithologies
in this well?
Photo Electric Pe Tool

Lithology with Density, Neutron and/or Sonic
Supplementary Measurement of the Density Tool
1970s Onward
Lower Energy Range Gamma Rays Affected by Photoelectric

Effect
Logged 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 Content

Quartz = 1.81 Barns
Dolomite = 3.14 Barns
Calcite = 5.08 Barns
Pe, PE, PEF

Photoelectric factor log

quartz
dolomite
calcite
30% porosity
20%
10%
coal
kaolinite
illite
smectite
chlorite
anhydrite
barns/electron
Pe
10
Compositional Analysis
Combing More Than Two Logs
Determine Lithology
Graphic Plots
Computation
Identification and Semi-Quantitative Estimates
Porosity Log Combinations

Single Porosity Measurement
Lithology 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
2 Logs
2 Minerals
Dolomitic-Limestone System
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 Density
Axis 2 Neutron and Density
Problem of Density and Sonic being Correlated
Addition of Pe in Newer Methods

M-N Cross Plot
M N Crossplot
Remove the effect of pore fluid
Usually drilling fluid
Combine Sonic and Density Logs (M)

M = (tfluid tmatrix) / (matrix fluid)
Combine Neutron and Density

N = (nfluid n matrix) / (matrix fluid)
M-N Cross Plot
RHOmaa Umaa Crossplot

Mineral Identification (MID) Plots
Apparent Matrix Density RHOmaa
Density and Neutron
Apparent Matrix Photoelectric Cross Section

Umaa
Density, Neutron and Photoelectric Effect
Apparent Matrix Density

RHOmaa
Photoelectric (PE) Factor
quartz
dolomite
calcite
30% porosity
20%
10%
coal
kaolinite
illite
smectite
chlorite
anhydrite
barns/electron
Pe
10
Volumetric Photoelectric Absorption

3
U/cm
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:
Volumetric Photoelectric Absorption

U 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
Umaa Values (Apparent )
RHOmaa
Umaa
Plot
Pyrite
Shale Characterization
Computational Analysis
2 Logs
2 Minerals
Computational 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 component
matrix
Log response equations:
Rewritten as matrices:
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

Project 2
http://www.geo.wvu.edu/~tcarr/PTTC_11_2010
Use Parameters From Appendix B
Open Compositional Template
Load in Separate Template Well 1.LAS
Onondaga (7562.5 7578)
Why are data points outside the Rhomaa-Umaa Triangle
Load in Separate Template Well 2.LAS
Onondaga (7501.5 7516)
Why are data points outside the Rhomaa-Umaa Triangle
Create Computational Plots
What is the difference in the two wells
My Observations
Tim Carr
Phone: 304.293.9660
Email: tim.carr@mail.wvu.edu

Carr WVU Marcellus Logging

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carr WVU Marcellus Logging

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Log Analysis

Using Microsoft Excel

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010

Key Reservoir Parameters

AVERAGE WELL HEAD PRICE

Recent Growth in Natural Gas Production, Lower 48 States,

Natural Gas Supply by source,

Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2009

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010

Marcellus Shale Resource

Potential Gas Committee, June 18, 2009

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010

Marcellus Shale Production Forecasts

Marcellus Shale Production Outlook

Source: Williams Partners L.P.

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010

Unconventional Resource Production

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010

Unconventional Resource Production

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010

Gas Shale Characteristics

Compositional Lithology Logs

Ubiquitous and Low Cost

Gamma-Ray Log Analysis

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010

Geochemists concept of typical

Th 11.6 ppm, U 15.2 ppm, K 2.99%

Typical Spectral Gamma-Ray

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010

Thorium and Uranium Concentration

Adams and Weaver (1958)

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010

Photo-Electric and Spectral Gamma Ray

Schlumberger, Log Interpretation Principles 1989, Page 6-4

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010

Photo-Electric and Spectral Gamma Ray

Schlumberger, Log Interpretation Principles 1989, Page 6-4

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010

Idealized Kansas Pennsylvanian Cyclothem

Spectral Gamma-Ray Log

Conoco Harrison #1 C-SW-NW 33-11S-10E

Chestnut Drive Section

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010

Devonian Shale Analysis

PETRA 10/20/2009 12:03:52 AM (Type log Template.CSP)

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010

Devonian Shale: Clay Type

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010

Make sure you open an LAS File with Notepad

Open Spectral Gamma Ray Template

Create & Examine Plots

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010

Open with Notepad

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010

Importing a LAS File to EXCEL

West Virginia University, November 17, 2010