SPE7920

FORMATION EVALUATION ANDGASDETECTION IN SHALLOW, LtWPERMEABILl TY SHALY SANDS OF THENORTHERN GREAT PLAINS PROWNCE
byG.C. Kukal, CERCtVp.

)Copyright 1979, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, Inc. This paper was presented at the 1979 SPE Symposiu!o on Low?rmeabi 1ity Gas Reservoirs, May 20-22, 1979, Denver, Color8do. The material is snhjcct to correction by the author. Permission to copy i~ restricted , m abstract of not more titan300 words. Write: 6200 N. Central Expy., Oallas, Texas 75206,

ABSTRACT Montana log, core, and production data are combined with geology in a systematic approach for improved log analysis of Jhallow upper Cretaceous gas sands having a high silt-clay content. Qualitative (overlay) techniques are reviewed with emphasis !pon the normalized At - compensated nc.atron overlay for gas detection. Log interpretationof the Bowdoin Member of the Carlile ..,~le and Eagle Sandstone in the area peripheral to the Bowdoin Dome Field is discussed in detail. Porosity tool responses are examined with respect to observe~ lithology and mineralogy. Lithology crossplot when compared to predicted log responses may he an aid in detecting the p~esence of gas and minerals that could be related to natural fracture systems (e.g., gypsum, pyrite). Quantitative techniques for estimation of @ffective porosity, volume clay, and water saturation are presented. The Total Shale Relation appears to give useful water saturation valu~:.. Log parameters relatir; to this equation are generalized and refined. INTRODUCTION With increasing gas prices, explora~.on for shallow, low-deliverabilityresources in the Northern Great Plains Province is becoming more attractive. Log interpretationhas alw~;s been a problem in the Upper Cretaceous of north-central Montana due to the extreme shali~ess of potential reservoirs, very fresh formation water, high water saturations, complex lithology, and uncertain logging assumptions. It is the goal of this paper to suggest techniques to improve gas detection an~ formation evaluation, particularly in marginally eccmomic areas peripheral or References and Illustrationsat end of paper. Notice: Reference to a company or product name is used for descriptive purposes only and does not imply approval or recommendationof the product by CER Corporation and/or the U.S. Department of Energy, to the exclusion of others that may be suitablm. -. -W)

adjacent to production J the Bowd@in Dome Field (Figure 1). This report uses e.synergetic apprnach for improved la interpretation. The litholc~; and .~ineralogy of the Bowdoin Member of the Carlile Shale and the Eagle Sandstone are descried in detail. This information ie useful for making predictions of log response and in refiningloggingassumptions. Suggestions are made for cross-plot methods based upon these log responses that may be useful to detect gas and/or to identify mineral components of the complex lithology. Finally, suggestions are presente( for improving ~zantitative log interpretations. LITHOIOGY AND MINERALOGY The Upper Cretaceous clastic section in the Bowdoin Dome arealis dominated by shales and clayey siltstones. The rock may carry variable amounts of gypsum, pyrite, carbnates, and micas. Reservoir rocks.may cor :ainup to 50 percent clay mine~alz, The Bowdoin Sand (Figure 2) is a poor quslity reservoir rock except where fractured. Most of the gas storage !. in silty laminae less than one centimeter thick. Permeability is low and artificial stimulation methods are employed to make the narginal wells more economic. Table 1 is a summary of the recent x-ray mineralogical analysis of 30 sidewall cores taken from two wells.18 The mineral compoeitlonfor each well is expressed as weight percent and is averaged into a total rock analysis and a clay size fraction analysis. The sieve size distribution of the 296~c.res (Figure l) consistsof 60 percent silt (2-62 pm), 35 >ercent clay (<2 pm), and 5 percent sand (>62 pm). The analysis shows the rock to be made up dominantly of quartz (52 percent) with the major clays being illite and kaolinite. Pyrite and gypsum aze present in significant amounts. The 0370 cores (Figure 1) are composed of a similar size distribution with 62 percent silt, 35

a.

percent clay, and 3 percent sand. The mineralogy ie nearly identical to the 2962 well.

Logging service companies operating in northcentral Montana are veryconsciom of log quality. Standard logging speeds for neutron logs are 900 ft/ hr because of low count rates. Zn addition, repeat Visual inspectim of the 0296 core (Figure 1) reveals the 3owdoin Member to be a dark gray aricaceous runs of statistical tools are advisable through the Bowdoin Section. shale with s% tstone lenses and laminations. Secondary pyrite is\estimated at volumes up to 10 percent in GAS DETECTION the interval between 1,440 and 1,4469(Figure 4). Thin dense gray limestones are at 1,392 and 1,416. Siltstone lenses are nest numerous in the interval 1,375 Gas is detected principally by normalizing the with best development between At curve to the neutron porosity curve in an overlay 1,392and 1,397 - 1,410, 1,380 - 1,385! fashion. This technique has bee~ previously documented6r 3~1~11110 and has seen w;.despread use in the The Eagle Sand (Figure 2) is a better quality Bowdoin Field since 1977. The &t curve is normalized over the neutron in average tight sands. The t%= reservoir rock than the Zowdoin but often requires structural closure for gas accumulation. The unit curves generally t:ack because of similar ttitil response. Gas is detected by virtue of the neutron and has increased potential tcr local stratigraphic traps At response in a gas zone. Neutron porosity decreasei in the shelf sand and siltstone-shalefacies as defined in the geologic l.iterature.~=In the Bowdoin ?.nresponse to gas and At increases, producing a development is typically in vinual crossover of curves. Dome area, reservoir clayey sandy siltstones. In the 0296 well, good development is shown in X-ray analysis of five Eagle sidewall cores in the Eagle between 540 and 550 ft Q?iqure.3). The Bowdoln (Figure 4) develops an attractive crossover wells 03,70 and 2962 (Figure 1) show a uniform mineral composition. The composition (by weight) averages between 1,377 and 1,390. The zone in the Bowdoin re63 percent quartz, 15 percent illite, 8 percent kaosulted in 13 MCFD before stimulation and after fraclinite, 3 percent dolomite, 3 percent feldspar, 3 perture cleaned up to 80 MCED. The Eagle tested between cent montmorillonite, 3 percent chlorite, anf 2 per5 and 10 MCFDbut may have some formation damage. At ce.~t pyrite for the total rock. The clay fraction present, wells in the field must produce at least 100 MCFD before they are connected to pipeline. analysis is 36 percent illite, 28 percent quartz, 15 percent kaolinite, 10 percent montmorillonite, 5 percent calcite, 3 percent chlorite, and 3 percent mixed It has also been customary to compare 0-60 perlayer clays. cent density porosity across two tracks with sonic 0-66 percent porosity across one track for visual dePoint count microscopic analyses of three select- tection of when q exceeds 50 percent. This praced 0296 core samplesJ indicate an average Eagle compotice is based upon the notion that: sition of 48 percent clay matrix, 24 percept quartz, 7 percent metamorphic rock fragments (mostiy quartz), Volume Clay = q = !%a - E& 5 percent dolomite, 5 percent plagioclase feldspar, . . . . (1) flsa 2 percent sideri.te{iron carbonate), 2 percent chert where (quartz),1 percent glauconite, and traces of biotite, @sa = apparent porosity from the sonic muscovite, and pyrite. $da = apparent porosity from the density In a clay mineralogy study of Pierre Shale (Figure 2] samples taken west, south, and east of the study area, it was found that the dominant clay minerals are mixed layer illite-smectite (montmorillonite group minerals] and illite.~7 Shales of the Telegrap h Creek equivalent (Figure 2) that were deposited in the near shelf marine environment are +i~pically composed of 70 percent clay minerals, 25 percent quartz, and 5 percent plagioclase. The clay minerals are further broken down into 7G percent mixed layer clays, M percent illite, 10 percent kaolinite, and 5 percent chlorite. The reason for the disparity of this ddta with that observed in the study area is net understood. LOGGING PROGRAM AND QUAL.[TY20NTROL .- Well economics favor runrdcg a complete suite of logs. A few thousand dollars spent in formation evaluation may maximize production, reduce operating expenses, reduce completion costs, or help eliminate unnecessary well completions. A minimum program should include induction or laterolog, c~mpensated neutron or sidewall nev.eron, sonic, and compensated density. The proximity or microlaterolog with microlog is also useful. In the case of the Bowdoin dnd Eagle, thie would not be a good assumption because (@da] is not necessarily effective porosity, SOtiLC compaction correction factor varies with dc.>thbetween 1.4 and 1.0 within the normal interval compared, and unusuallith olo~ effects are not taken in,toconsideration. Furthermore, VCI is equai to q only when dealingwith a dispersed system which mostcertainly is not the case in the Bowdoin. The practice of drafting the sonic porosity curve on the density porosity should be discontinued. Xn lieu of qprese>tation, gamma ray alone will do quite nicely for quick-look shaliness estimation. This is true because the iilite-kaolini.te ratio remains constant within each section being evaluated. A spectral gamma should be run in the area to see if uranium and thorium disturb this prediction?. Now the responsesof the several porosity logs tc various minerals will be exa~ined. This will help us understand how changes in lithology and minerelogl will affect our overlay technique gas detection.

nc

SONIC RESPONSE Acoustic travel times qenerally vary between 150 and 70 psec/ft in the Bowdoin and Eagle section. The high travel times (low velocity) reflect a low degree of compaction and a high volume of clay. Sonio compaction correction factor (Cp) vbzies generally betw(en 1.4 and 1.0, the compaction increasing with depi.h. The clay minerals and micas are plate>-minerals and have a high degrae of anisotropism. With increasing compaction there ie e tendency for theme minerals to foliate perpendicular to the principal stress (overburden). since sound travels much faS~~Jr perpendicular to the platethan it aoes parallel, the At reflects the degree of compaction -- particularly when compared to a measurement that dot%gnot respond to this preferred orientation (nautron) Table.4 swrizes the effect of various minerals upon the sonic log. These calculations assume Cp = 1, At fluid = 189 Psec/ft, and that the following relations hold: A~a=At quartz (Vquartz) +Atmineral (Vmineral) . . . . (2) At = At~ + @ (Atfluid- Atma) . . . . (3)

porosity. In reality however, the response is also influenced by the formationstihermal neutron captu~e cross section (2), Furthermore, the formation exhibits a lithology effect which is related to the thern!alizing ability of atoms other than hydrogen. The ability OF an atom to thermalize neutrons is related inversely to its atomic ntier.g The aton@c number reciprocals for the common elements are presented in Table 2. Zt should prove useful to develop this concept to better understand the lithology effect. Mineral velumes should thermalize neutrons according to the follo~.ag relatim~ ThermalizingIndex (TX) =
KTh

Molecule:3/cc! (mineral) KTh Moleculeb~& (quartz) . . . . (6)

where KTh = Molecular thermalizing coefficient = ~+~+~ Z1 Z2 Zx . . . . (7) (the sum of the atomic number reciprocals for each atom in a molecule) Nd and Molecules/cc = M where N = Avogadro!s number density d x grain M = Molecular weight / . . . . (8)

- Atma quartz $sa = At&id - Atm quartz where V At @ ma @sa = = = = =

. . . . (4)

volume % travel time porosity matrix APParent sonic porosity relative to quartz.

A quartz standard is chosen for convenience because we are dealing with shaly sands. Table 3 summarizes the aesumtions used in calculating the Thermalizing Index for each mineral in the study area. l?i,qure !5plov.sthe !l?hernwdizing Index versus Apparent Quartz Nautron Porosity. since it is here assumed for comparative purposes that porosity is dependent only upon thermalizing ability, then all the points should Lie along a straight line defined by the quartz point and water point. The apparent quartz neutron porosity can be read for any plotted mineral. Comparison with the Kydrogen Xndex shows similarities to the new approach. The TX method, however, adds into the estimation the effects of Uthology for atoms other than hydrogen and is therefore more useful. For example, a rock composed of 100percent dolomite having O percent effective porosity will read 4 percent apparent quartz neution porosity. !l?his is reasonable with respect to ~~piri.cal charts relating neutron lithology effects. It is clear that all clays will-cause incre..ses in apparent neutron porosity (?na) but not to the same degree. For example a rock consisting of 100 percent kaolinite and O percent effective porosity should read approximately 39 percent quartz flna. 100 percent montmorillonite and O percent porosity would read 17 percent quartz @la. Neutron responee to illite is somewhat underestimated from T!Idue to a comparatively high Z. Table 4 illustrates the neutron response to a rock having 15 percent eff~etive porositif and 10 percent impurity of a given mineral in an otherwise 90 perf:er,t pure quartzose sandstone.14 This should eerve as an indication of the relative influence of these minerals and should be useful in interpreting

The calculati~n for the platey micas and clays is based on the assumption that velocity varies between 15,000 ft/sec and 5,000 ft/sec depending upon crystallographic orientation. Since perfect orientation is not possible, an average velocity of 12,000 ft/sec is assumed. In the case of kaolinite, orientation is nearly random and velocity is assumed to be 10,000 Zt/sec. Other responses of significance are those of pyrite which increasesfisarelative to quartz, the carbonates which slightly decrease @sa relative to. qua;tz, and gypsum which has nearly the same At as quartz. COMPENSATED NEUTRON LOG RESPONSE The Compensated Neutron response ie most directly related to the ability of a formation to thermalize neutrons. Since hydrogen has the greatest thermalizing propensity, it has sometimes been useful to use a Hydrogen Index (HZ) in order tounderstand how a given mineral. will influence thk neutron response. ~= = hydroqen atoms/cc hydrogen atoms/cc (Mineral) (Witer)

.. . . (5)

It has been generally accepted that gypsum (CaS04 2 H20) with HI = 0.48 will exhibit a CN response of 48 percent limestone porosity. Likewise, calcite (CaC03)with a HI = O should have O percent limestone ..

lithology -- particularly when compared to the response of other porosity logs. For example, the presents of 10 percent gypsum will produce a response of 1.7 percent $na.lb Carbonates cause only a slight increase in @na. Pyrite will also cause increases m neutron porosity. EV@n though TI is low, the high Z will actually produce a substantial increase [from 1!5percent to 19 percent~a with 10p@rcent imPuritYin a rock of 15 percent effective porosity).4 semi-compacted shaly sections in the stufiy area commonly reati quartz @na in excess of 45 percent. This is due principally to the lithology effects Df illite, kaolinite, gypsum, anclpyrite, to effective porosities in excesskof 20 percent anilto the adsorption of water particularly by the expandable-layer clays. The Ardmore Bentonite Bea [at 520 ft on Figure 3) antinumerous bentonite jn the Claggett Shale reatl60 percent flna. These beds are composes of 95 percent montmorillonite~7,are unaercompactea comparea to the section below, have a high effective porosity, ana carry a large volume of adsorbea watez. Because of the clissimilarity between these bec?sana the rest of the section, it is cautioned not t~ use any clay parameters from this interval in making generalities about clay response in the underlying section. DENSITY RESPONSE The apparent aensity for a rock of O percent effective poroti~ty read by the density tool is relatetl to the grain aensity of the material by the following equation; Pma = 2 agrain Z/A where tool response to = Pa = clensity a material having O percent porosity dgrain = grain density = atomic number/atomic weight Z/A Pm Table 4summarizes $he again antiPZ,for the minerals founcl in the Bowcioin Done Fielcl. AS an example of conversion, gypsum having a true grain Ciensity of 2.32 anclZ/A = .5111 has a p- = 2.37. Thus the . density tool has a response that will cause it to reaa gypsum more dense than its true Ctensity. This phenomenon 5.sof importance when trying to interpret porosity from the density reaaing. Apparentdensityporosity [@aa) is expressed by the familiar relation: @ka = ~~a~ where Lhna= aenaity response to a material having O percent effective porosity pb = aensity log reaaing pf = tlensityresponseto formationfluid in ,, vicinity of wellbore. ~~ . . . . [10 ] . . . . (91

A major goal of well log analysis is to try to refine these parameters so that flda~ @effective. First we will look at matrix density. Refinement of grain density and apparent matrix density is summarized in Table 5. Several techniques are utilized to generate this data. First, grain density measurements are made on core samples. Second, the rocks are broken down into their mineral constituents as defined by x-ray analysis as presented in Table 1, we#ght percent is convertea to volume percent, and inlable4. the rocks agrain ancl pa (~ma)arepresentea Finally, the rockstare broken tiownas above into their mineral constituents by methoa of microscopic point count antithe clay matrix is assumetfi to have the same agrain ana Pma as calculated by usinq x-ray analysis. Several interpretationscap be mek!srelative to the tiatain Table 5: 1. The density tool will reaclvery Yearly tra~ aensity in both the 130waoin sna Eagle section.

2. A good practical Pma for use in the Eagle is 2.70. This value is supportea by all the clata. 3. Pma clay in the E~yle ana I+owaoinis very similar to Oma cf other minerals, ana for this reason it is not very significant to correct flaafor shaliness. Organic matter is observes in the 0296 Bowdoin section as abunclant brown Iaminae. Differences in ~ma from grain .5ensity measurements ana x-ray analysis reflect this volume. Generalizations regaraing Pma in the Bowtloin must assume that organic matter is equally distributes throughout the section. Since thie may not be the case, it may be best to assume that Pma = 2.68 (Erom the grain density measurements) ana to calculate @e by using a clensity-neutron crossplot.

A ..

5.

The density of formation fluicl(P~l in the invaaea zone of a gas-water system is quite often assumea to be 1.0. This number may be improved by taking for effective porosity cieterminations into consideration the pm -agrain relation,salinityt Sxo, anclgas aensity (phi. The following relation is approximate Pf = [1 - s~o) ~h + Sxo Pmf where Sxo = water saturation of the flushed zone Ph = aens~ty tool response to hy&ocarbon tool responsetomua filtrate Pnlf= clensity Ur,cler formation conditions in the 0296 well,for example, SXO = .85, Ph = .03, aza Pmf = 1.11, so = .95. f . . . . [111

00

.1

LITHOLOGY CROSSPLOTS For gas detection we have been relying heavily .-penthe compensated neutron-sonic overlay. We have been taking advantage o< t~ol response to ges. Neutron decreases while sbnic increases. We should pose the question: Will varioue secondary minerals that may be fracture related cause a masking of the gas response? The answer is yes. Table 4 demonstrates that @na - @sa will increase significantlywith the addition of gypsum, si.deritet and pyrite. For example, a clean rock that has 10 percent gypsum and 15 percent effective porosity will mask gas effect 3.8 porosity units. We can use lithology crossplot to help us define matrix and particularly to identify the presence of gypsum, pyrite, or siderite. This could help us to detect gas that might otherwise be overlooked. Also, the detection of these minerals could have exploration ir,pilca>ions. Pheimportant point to be mentioned regarding crosaplots in shaly sands is that the data interval should be selected on the basis of geologic criteria. For example, if the purpose of the plot is to detect the presence of one mineral, say gypsum, then it would be unwise to include the Bowdoin Member with part of the overlying Niobrara Formation. We would prefer to deal with as few variables at a time as possible. In designing optimum crossplot for detection of gypsum, pyrite, and siderite, we need to take best advantage of log response. Using f8na- fisa versus @na - @da versus @sa - k Plots we should be able to detect even small volumes of these minerals (see Table 4). An advantage of these plots over conventional type plots is that they allow us to detect the minerals of interest while at the same time compensating for gas and clay response., . . The lithology plots described ative lend themselves to computer processing. It should prove useful to plot depth, frequency, VclaY from the gamma, and Rt on the z-axis. These plots will be utilized in a continuation of this research. QUANTITATIVE LOG CALCULATIONS Effective porosity is best calculated fzom tb.a density log by using equation 10 and proper assumptione for matrix and fluid. Porosities obtained in this manner,are in agreement with core porosity in the Eagle. Bowdoin Gore porosity tends to run slightly h!.gher than density porosity. This iS thought to be due to artificial fracturing and decrepitation of the core which accompanies dehydration of clays. The core actually increases in volume unless plastic sleeve coring tr.chniques are employed. This phenomenon also has a pronounced effect upon permeability measurements. Volume clay can be calculated by using a combination of density.and neutron. Two techniques using hand carried calculators have been recently published. One technique makes cse of a geometrical neutron20 The other defines effective density crossplot. porosity in terms of both neutron and densityt and

then equates the two and solves for Vsh.7 Both techniques seem to work well but require good assumptions. Probably a better technique of Vsh estimation is through the use of gannnar~y. This technique, although used widely elsewhere, is not readily applied in the Bowdoin Dome Field. This is because of the absence of any clean zones within the section. TO get around this problem, it is suggested to crossplot Vsh from a neutron-densitymethod against gamma. The intersection of the line defined by the plot with the O percent neutron-densityVsh line will give an approximate value for clean sand. The value for gannna clay is approximately 1.4 times the game reading in the Telegraph Creek Formation (composedof ~ 70 percent clay). ~ Water saturation calculations require the use shaly sand equations to compensate forclay reIated resistivity decreases. The type of equation needed is one that will be applicable in both laminated and disperseddistributionof clay within the rock. One of the better equaticmm for this purpose takes the following form:
of

Sw=a Rw(l-V~h) %2+ {JT Rsh 2 @em

4 @em Vsh a Rfi:: Rt (1 - Vsh)- ~ . ..* } (12

where a % Vsh @e m Rsh Rt = = = = = = = formation factor coefficient formation water resistivity volume clay effective porosity cementation exponent res.istivity clay true formation resistivity

It has been variously referred to as Total Shale 16 ItTotal Shale EquationJa and Modified Relation, Simandoux Equetion.12 Application of the Total Shale Relation can we demonstrated by rewriting the equation; Sxo = a Rmf(l-vsh) 2 @em W2 II Reh ~. a ~~Rxom(l-Vsh)-Z 1

[J

. . . . (13 where sX. = flushed zone water saturation &f = reSiStivity mud filtrate Rxo = zesistivity flushed zone Flushed zone saturations (Sxo) average 80-90 percent in the Eagle and Bowdoin using this equation. In comparison, Archie equation alone gives saturations over 200 percent. Saturation.calculationsfor the 0296 well (Figure 3 and 4) using the above methods give the following saturations: 541- 5508 ~= Eagle Bowdoin 1,380-1,388SW= 67% 67%

,...

Table 6 summarizes the assumptions used in making these calculations. Both zones calculate over 100 percent & using Saraband computed analysis. The 67 percent seems reasonable because the zones produce both gas and water. The Waxman-smite equationlhillbe appliedin the future when cation exchange data become available. CONCLUSIONS Conventional log interpretationtechniques have beefiineffective in detecting gas in the Bcwdoin and Eagle sections of the Bowdoin Dome Field. ~ Effective interpretation system will take best advantage of geologic data and tool reepcnse. we suggest use of the,neutron sonic overlay in conjunction with computer generated lithology croseplots. Effort should be made to quantify reservoir parameters. Methods for interpretingwater saturation, volume clay, and poroeity as preeented in thie report should be utilized to maximize production, reduce operating axpenses, reduce completion costs, or help eliminate unnecessary well completions. NOMENCLATURE a = A= Cp = d= ;h ~ m= ~. ml u N= , P= q&lay = Rild =
Rmf = Rsh =

Ph = density tool responee to hydrocarbon, g /cc Pmz = density tool response to rock matrix,
g /cc

tool reeponseto mud filtrate, g/cc Z = ~eutron capture crose section, barns @da ~ apparent density porosity (@da)cl y = apparent density porosity clay $e = effective poroeity = effective poroeity clay (@e)clay PJIs= limestone porosity @na= apparent neutron porosity = apparent neutron porosity clay (Ona)clay (@na)m = apparent neutron porosity rock matrix (@na) mf = correction for invaded filtrate = p~f (1 -P) (@sa)= apparent conic porosity
Pmf = density

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This study wa,sfunded by the Department of Energy under the Western Gas Sands Project. Thanks are due CER.Corporation management and geologists for encouragement to engage in this research. We would also like to thank J.J.C. Paine for participating in the Western Gas Sands Coring and Logging Program, the U.S. Geological Survey personnel involved in the Western Gas Sands Projectt and Kansae Nebraska Natural Gas Company. .PREFERENCES 1. Bettis, F., *lGas Detection in Sands of High Silt-Clay Content in the Cook Inlet Area; Trans. SPWLA Seventeenth Annual Logging Sympcsium, 1976. CamPent E.B., IiWell Log AnalYeis in the Cretaceous Gas Sands of Northern Montana, Montana Geological Society 22nd Publication, 1975. cannon, D.E,, llEvaluation of ShalY Sande with Low Deliverability,The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, January-March, 1975. Clavier, C., Heim, A., and Scala, C., Effect of Pyrite on Resietivity and Other LOggin9 Measurements, TranS. SPWLA SeventeenthAnnual Logging symposiS976. Cutrese, W.G., An Empirical Approach to Log Interpretation in the Viking Sand of East Central Alberta, Trans. SPWLA Fifteenth Annual Logging Symposium, 1974. Daweon-Grove, G.E., Shallow Gaer How to Lacate EaSilY Missed Pay Sands, World Oil, SePtember 1977. and Neutron-DensitY~9 Garb, F.A., nNeutron Analysis Procedures, PetrolWm 13n9ineerp MSY, 1?78 . Gautier, D.L., Major Mineral Constituents of Selected Paine Well Samples, written communication, 1979. Gearhart-Owen Industries, Inc., Formation Evaluation Data Han-ok, 1975.

Rt = ~. Rxo = Sw = Sxo = %: v= veh = ~n At n Atma = Pa = Pb = (Pb)clay= Pf =

formation factor coefficient atomic weight sonic compaction correction factor Sgraim = grain density, g/cc Hydrogen Index molecular thermalizing coefficient cementation exponent molacular weight slope for hydrocarbon correction Avogadzo*s number, 6.025 x 1023 dissolve~ eolids content of filtrate, ppm x 10 6 dispersed ehale fraction resistivity clay, ohm-m reeistivity deep induction, ohm-m resistivity mud filtrate, ohm-m %~ay = reeietivity ehale, ohm-m true formation reslstivity, ohm-m formation watcz resistivity, ohm-m resistivity flushed zone, ohm-m water saturation, fraction of pore volume water saturation flushed zone, fraction of pore volume .. formation temperature Thermalizing Index Volume vc~ay = clay content, fraction of bulk volume atomic number acoustic travel time from the sonic log, peec/ft acoustic travel time in rock matrix, wec/ft apparent density from density 109, g/cc density tool reeponse to the f~rmation g/cc density tool response to the formation clay g/cc density tool response to fluid in 9/cc vicinity of well bore,

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

,.,

Detection in the EXtremelY 10. ~enq, Kc., vGas Shaly Bowdoin Formation of Northern Montana, Unpublished written communication, 1978.

16.

Schlumberger,I@., Principles, 1972.

Leg Interpretation,VoluMe I-

17. 11. Henry, K.C., Leg Evaluation in the Bowdoin Dome Field, Unpublished written conununication, 1977. 12. Johnson, W.L., Linke, W.A., Some Practical Applications to Improve Formatim Evaluation of Sandstones in the MacKenzie lmlta, Trans., SPWLA Nineteenth Annual Logging symposi~978. i2. l@walchuk, H., Coats, G., and Wells, L., The Evaluation of Very Shaly Formations in Canada Using a Systematic Approach, Trane., SPWLA Fifteenth Annual Logging Sympo= 1974. 14. Kukal, G.C., ~lEsti~tionOf Neutron ~g esponse Using Thermallzing Index and capture Cross Section, in preparation. 15. Rice, D.D., Shurr, G.W., Potential for Major Natural Gas Resources in Shallow, LQW Permeability Reservoirs of the Northern Great Plains, Montana Geological Society 24th Annual Conference, 1978. 1s.

Cky h the ierre Schultz, L., w~~xed-~ayer Shale and Equivalent Rocks, Northern Great Plains Region, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper L064-A, 1978.

Starkey, H.C., Blackmon, P.D., Rice, D.D., MineralogicalAnalysis of Drill Core Samples from klidlands Gas Corporation Wells -- Federal 0370 No. 1 and Federal 2962 No. 1, Phillips County, Montana, U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 78-1001, 1978.

19. Waxman, M.H., Smits, L.J.M., Electrical Conductivities in Oil-Bearing shaly Sands, Trans. SPE 42nd Annual Fall Meeting, 1967. , 20. WU, C.H.? Krug, ~., Density-NeutronCrossplot Analysie for Shaly Gas Sands Using Hand-carried Calculators, The Log Analyst, volume 19 #4, 1978. See also Erratum, The Log Analyst, Volume 19 #6, 1978.

Table 1 Mineral composition bowdoin mcmbercarlile shale Midlands370 #1 (17Sarnplea) Average Total Clay Size Average Range Fraction Total
Sample(%) (%) 45-65 15-25 7-15 3-15 3- 7 0- 7 3 0-15 0..7 0- 3 Only(%) 25.3 48.2 16.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.9 100.0

Midlanda2962 #1 (13Samples) Average Total Clay Size Average

Total Range Sample(%) (%) 49.5 18.0 11.0 6.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 _ 2.0 100.0 40-65 15-25 7-15 3-15 3 0-1o 3- 7 0-1o 0- 7 0- 3 0- 7 Fraction Only(%) 26.9 42.9 19.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 2.2 5.4 100.0

Quartz Illite Xsolinite

Pyrite Feldspar Gypsum Chlorite

52.0 18.0 11.0 7.0 3.5 2.5 3.0 2.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 100.0

Calcite mlomite Montmorillonite Mixedlayerclays

Total

91

!,.

Table 2 Neutron response to the conmon elements Thermal Neutron Capture Cross Section (Barns) 0.33 0.0034 0.0002 0.400 0.0625 0.232 0.1638 0.49 2.152 0.455 2.514

1 z
Hydrogen

1 6 8 11 12 13 14
16

1.000
0.167 0.125 0.091 0.083 0.077 0.071
0.063

Carbon oxygen Sodium Magnesium

L

Aluminum Silicon
sulfur

Potassium Calcium Iron

19 20 26

0.053 0.050 0.038

Table 3 Neutron response to various minerals

Mineral Water (pure) Gypsum Kaolinite Chlorite WOntmorillonite Illite Glauconite Muscwite Biotite 001omite Calcite HzO CaSO~ . 2H20

Foxmula

M 18.02 172.17 516.32 1,221.66 73S.64 758.62 S31.51 398.31 465.01 1S4.22 100.09 69.OS 171.70 262.13 16.04 119.98

%h 2.12 4.S6 10.s4 29.91 10.00 7.94 10.04 3.7B 4.02 1.22 0.59 0.32 0.62 1.39 4.17 0,16

K1.h WOlecules/cc (X N)

TI 8.310 4.610 3.S90 3.420 2.240 2.~go 1.960 l,9\~ 1.760 1.320 1.130 1.000 0.9S6 0.986 0.493 0.4S6

HI 1.00 0.48 0.37 0.32 0.17 (.13 ,.15 0.13 0.11 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .06 .00

z 22.OB 19.40 13.06 18.72 8.10 39.90 20.55 17.30 28.03 4.7s 7.48 <.36 6s.51 6.99 1,34 55.75

1.00
2.32 2.63 2.71 2.35 2.84 2.3o 2.93 2.90 2.85 2.71 2.65 3.88 2.66 0.03 5.o6

. 11s
.066 .055 .049 .032 .030 .028 .028 .025 .019 .016 .014 .014 .014 ,007 .007

iilqSih 010 (OH)O (Mg;Al, Fe)IZ(S1, A2)E OZO(OH) 16 A2u Sia OZO (OH) 4 - n HzO K AIs Si7 OZII(OK) II Kz(Fe,Al#Wg) 4 (Si,Al) 8 ozo (OW I+s n H20 K A12 (S13 Al) 010 (OH) z

2C(Fe, Wg,Al) 3 [Si,Al) II olo(W 2 ca63g (C03)2 taco 3 Sioz FmzC03 NaAl
s:308

Quartz
Biderite Wa Plagicalase Methane Pyrite

(S00psia - 75?F)C334 Fe S2

-..

Table 4 Summary of porosity log response to various minerals

Apparent Porosity with 108 of 142neral in 4 SemiCompacted QuartzSan6stone Having#e - 159

Zmpurity

Difference in Xesmnse for 10* Im urityof Mineral in a Semi-compacted Quarts~andstone

Having kle 15$

TI

d grain

!%

At

afna
Water (pure) Gypsum Yaolinite Chlorite Wontmmllkznite Illite Glauconite muacovite Biotite ColorAte calcite Quartz Siderite Na Plagioclase Pyrite 8.31 4.61 3.89 3.42 2,24 2.09 1.96 1.96 1.76 1.32 1.13 22.08 19.40 13.06 1s.s72 8.10 39.90 20.55 17.30 28.93 4.70 7.48 4.36 6s.51 6.99 88.70 1.00 2,32 2,63 2.71 2.35 2.84 2.30 2,Q3 2.90 2.85 2.71 2.65 3.8s 2.66 S.06 1.11 2.37 2.6a 2.74 2.35 2.81 4.30 2.91 2.84 2.85 2.:1 2.65 3.72 2.64 4.91 207.0 53.0 n* A* 8* 8* A* A* A* 44.0 46.5 55.1 ? ? 67. o --.187 .163 .17B .164 ..19** .161 .161 ..18*O >.4 ,152 --*.19** .15 =.19**

@da

f%l

fin - @.?afP. U.)

!& - @da(P.u. )

l%a - @da(P.c. )

--.164 .148 .145 .165 .142 .168 .137 .140 .140 .147 --.095 .15 .034

--.149 =.18 *.17 ..17 =.17 =.17 =.17 =.17 .143 .145 ... ..14? ..15? .158 *

--3.s . .!3.4 = 0.s . -0,6 = 2.0 * +,9 . -0.9 = 1.0 1.1 0.7 -.. = 5.0 0,0 3.2

.. .
2.3 3.5 3.3 0.0 = 4.8 -0.7 2.4 . 4.0 1.4 0,5 --* 9.5

..-1.5 . 3.2 = 2.5 . 0.5 . 2.8 * 0.2 = 3.3 = 3.0 0.3 -0.2 ... 4.5 * 0.0

1.00
0.99 0.99 U.49

*15.6

12.4

q AnisotrOpic - Plateyminerals, At depending largely upon degree of compaction q .z ~Or=e~tiO~ ~p@l~a iaadttl~~ toTIcorrections

and

foliation

Refinement of grain density

apparent matrix density (Pma)

%ain MINSWS OTN8R TILAN CLAY MINER4LS % ALL MINEPALS OTRSR TNAN C~Y MINERALS

%xain

%n
CLAY MINSRALB ONLY

ALL

FoRMATION

SOURCE OF DATA

%rain 3VTAL RCCK

Ih.a TOTAL RGCK

CUtY-MINESA3.9 ONLY

%wdc in

Commercialgrain density measurements50 samples 0296 well, 1,351 - 1,4451

2.6s0 Range 2.78 - 2.60

2.677

X-ray analysis, 17 sidewall cores 0370 well, 1,70s - 1,S40. 5; 13 sidewall cores 2962 wall, 1,406- 1,5331 J Breakdown into mineral constituantsall aiave sizes. G3es not inelude organic matter.

2.76o .

2.756 ,. .

2.737 . .:.. ..

2.741 .

2.772

2.765

Eagle

Commercialgrain density measurements67 ssmples 0296 well, 554 - 5781, 835 - 891{.

2.7o4 S6nge 2.75 - 2.65 *

2.702

X-ray analyeis, 3 sidewall cores 2962 well, 573 - 717-J 2 sidewall coraa 0370 well, 846- 847*I Bzeakdown into mineral constituentsall sieve aisee. 0rg6nic matter removed ia not aigni ficant

2.699

2.697

2.708

2.711

2.695

2.691

Nicvoacopicpoint count, 3 selected 0296 well coras, 562 . . 8471, in conjunction with clay size fraction X-ray analyais. -

2.703

2.697

Table 6 Assumptions used in quantitative calculations

Parameter % Eagl,?Bowdoin

. . .

l.om 60F (15.6oC) 3ti .55 .20 +.02 greater than fdl~ 1.0 .003 pplnx 10-6 .95 ~/cc 2.70 g/cc 2.71 g/cc -.017 1.11 g/cc
.03 g/cc

.635Slm 750F (23,90c) 2Gm . .55 .20 +.o2 greater than @ls 1.0 .003 ppm x 10-6 .95 g/cc 2.68g,cc 2.74 g/cc -.035 1.11 g/cc .03 g/cc .85 .65

Tfm &lay
(g~a)clay

(@e)clay (@na)m (@n)mf P Pf Pm@ (Pb)clay (@da)clay Pmf

ph

Sxo ml

.85 .65

...

Bearpaw Shale t

33N
)

32N

LLIJ
BowdoinDome

Claggett Shale

Pierre Shak

Field

31N

SON
1
1

R
I

Telegraph Creek Fm. I

Niobrera Fm.

) i
30E 28N
1

Carlile Fm. Bowdoin Mbr.

29N

J.

-f-h
Phillips I

J. C.P8ine Midlands Fed1.0296

I
% VeUey

Salle Pourche ehtde

I
24E 35E

I
36E

I
Fig. 2- Upper Cretaceous stratigraphic section in vicinity of Bowdoin Dome, North Central Montana.

31E

32E

33E

Fig. 1 - Index map of Bowdoin Dome Field, North Central Montana.

,,,

GAMMA RAY o API 200

RESISTIVIIY, OHMS mz/m

SANDSTONE POROSITY

60

45

30

15

I
500

l-RILD

600

-d t_-11.
Fig. 3Midlands gas federal 1-0296 composite log of Upper Eagle sandstone.

-.

I.

..*

I
I

~ I--3-I
1[ -1 l--

M1sTlTyOHMsmm rsmDsmNE OROsTy

DENSITY

,Rx()

}icN1-

-i

l-.

Fig. 4-

Midlands gas federal 1-0296 composite lcg of Bowdoin MBI?.of Carlile FM.

.,

.... Kxl
90 .,

. . .60
I

.10

.20 I

.30 I

.40
I

.60
I

.70
I

,80
I

.90
I fl\

1.00
water

SO I

70 60 HI
40 . Mo~trnorMonlk 30 Qlluccmita Museoviie Iulte I } / Chlo?l k \\\ \

/ Gyp Iunl ,
Chlotito Kielinlk

Kaullnl@

Blotlta MethuIe \w

I
1
2 3

I
7

I
8

I
9

I
10

4 6 6 Thermelizing Index (Quartz Standerd)

Fig. 5 - Neutron response to thqrmal izers.

,-

----