IPA13-G-144

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Thirty-Seventh Annual Convention & Exhibition, May 2013
FROM PETROPHYSICS TO ROCK MECHANICAL PROPERTIES: A SUPPORT TO SHALEGAS HYDRAULIC FRACTURING PROGRAM IN COOPER BASIN, AUSTRALIA
Naslin*

ABSTRACT
Unconventional shale-gas reservoirs are emerging
exploration targets for the petroleum industry in the
Cooper Basin, South Australia. This interest derives
from the recent success of the Permian Roseneath
and Murteree shales that are thermally mature and
contain high-organic source rocks. This paper
presents a case study of mechanical rock properties
for a shale-gas reservoir within the Cooper Basin.
Acoustic and nuclear wireline petrophysical log
data was used to determine the dynamic rock
moduli that improved our understanding of the rock
parameters. The rock dynamic moduli were
calibrated to the static Youngs Modulus and
Poissons Ratio from core tri-axial tests to
determine mechanical properties of the targeted
reservoir. Youngs Modulus and Poissons Ratio are
also combined to predict induced fracture
complexity (pseudo brittleness). Lower values of
Poissons Ratio indicate the rock will be more
brittle (Rickman et al., 2008).
To design a hydraulic fracturing program, an
estimation of fracture closure pressure is an
important requirement. This pressure is determined
by the overburden pressure (a function of depth and
rock density), pore pressure, Poissons Ratio,
porosity, and tectonic stresses. To validate the
calculated closure pressure, a calibration from a
mini-frac diagnostic is performed. The results of
this case have improved our understanding of how
shale gas in the Cooper Basin should be completed
and commercially produced.
INTRODUCTION
Numerous oil and gas fields in the Cooper Basin
point to the Permian shale as the effective source
rocks. These shales now are emerging exploration
targets for unconventional shale-gas plays, where
the Roseneath, Epsilon, and Murteree formation
(REM) is the most prolific shale-gas identified in
*

Halliburton

the basin. Based on the same deposition,

stratigraphy, and lithological similarities, the
Roseneath and Murteree shale have the same
geochemical, petrophysical, and geomechanical
characteristics. The REM source rocks are
dominated by Type III kerogens derived from plant
assemblages. Initial mineralogical data indicate that
these shales consist mainly of quartz, feldspar,
carbonate (mainly iron-rich siderite) and clay
(predominately illite). In spite of the lacustrine
depositional origin, this lithology appears brittle and
could respond well to hydraulic fracturing. As part
of a shale-gas exploration program in recent well
drilling, a wireline logging program has
successfully completed through the Permian section
and core samples from the Roseneath and Murteree
shale have been obtained. These data have been
integrated with existing data to improve our
understanding of the characteristics of these
potential shale reservoirs. This is essential to
complete the wells and commercially produce the
hydrocarbons.
METHODOLOGY
Visual interpretation of logs for shale gas is not
simple. High resistivity with high gamma ray and
low density are usually the first indicators of shale
gas. Resistivity and gamma ray measurements are
higher than in surrounding shales due to the
increased organic material. Bulk density
measurements are lower than in the surrounding
shales for the same reason. However, in shale
reservoirs, petrophysical evaluation cannot be
performed using conventional methods. Figure 1
shows a petrophysical evaluation for shale-gas also
includes
geochemical
and
geomechanical
evaluations.
A practical method, the DeltalogR technique, for
identifying and calculating total organic carbon in
organic-rich rocks has been developed by Passey et
al. (1990) using well logs. The method as
represented by Figure 2, overlays a properly scaled
porosity log onto a resistivity curve (preferably
from a deep-reading tool). In water-saturated,

,3$WK$QQXDO&RQYHQWLRQ3URFHHGLQJV

organic-lean rocks, the two curves parallel each

other and can be overlain, since both curves respond
to variations in formation porosity. However, in
either hydrocarbon reservoir rocks or organic-rich
non-reservoir rocks, a separation between the
curves occurs. Using the gamma-ray curve,
reservoir intervals can be identified and eliminated
from the analysis. The separation in organic-rich
intervals results from two effects: the porosity curve
responds to the presence of low-density, lowvelocity kerogen, and the resistivity curve responds
to the formation fluid.
The DeltalogR separation is linearly related to total
organic carbon (TOC) and is a function of maturity.
Using a DeltalogR vs. TOC diagram (Figure 3), the
DeltalogR separation can be transformed directly to
TOC if the maturity can be determined or estimated.
In practice, Level of Organic Maturity (LOM) is
obtained from a variety of sample analyses (e.g.,
vitrinite reflectance, thermal alteration index, or
Tmax) or from estimates of burial and thermal
history.
The prediction of mineralogy, kerogen, porosity,
and gas saturation in shale gas reservoirs from
wireline logs is the next step needed to support the
mechanical properties analysis. We propose to use
petrophyisical probabilistic error minimization
methods to derive gas-shale volumetrics from
various types of log data, including: conventional
density, neutron porosity, acoustic, resistivity,
natural gamma ray, and calculated TOC.
Performing the calculations using this technique
requires theoretical log response equations for each
sensor used. Response equations have been
constructed for formation mineral and fluid volumes
and the response parameters for each constituent.
Linear mixing laws were followed for most sensors
but some, such as neutron, resistivity, and acoustic
involved more complicated non-linear functions.
The idea is to solve the system of simultaneous
theoretical tool response equations for the mineral
and fluid volumes that gave the best match to the
logs. Then a mathematical solver is used to derive
the solution for the formation volumes
corresponding to the smallest differences between
the theoretical tool responses and the logs. The
output provides independent volumes of free (nonclay-bound) water, gas, and oil in the invaded and
undisturbed zones, a total volume of clay-bound
water, and mineral volumes (Figure 4).
To illustrate the concept, below is a simple model
involving density and photoelectric absorption logs
to solve for free water (VXWA), gas (VXG), quartz

(VQTZ), and illite clay (VILL). The theoretical

density response, bth, for this simple model can be
expressed as:

bth mf VXWA g VXG quartzVQTZ illite

cbwWCLPillite

VILL
1WCLPillite

Where mf is the mud filtrate density (assuming it

represents the free water density in the invaded zone
investigated by the density tool), g is the density of
gas, quartz represents the density of quartz, illite is
the density of dry illite, cbw stands for the density
of clay-bound water, and WCLPillite is the wet clay
porosity of illite.
A similar linear construction can be made to express
the theoretical photoelectric response, Uth:

U WCLP
illite
VILL
Ug VXGUquartzVQTZ
Uillite cbw
Uth Umf VXWA
1WCLP
illite

where Umf, Ug, Uquartz, Uillite, and Ucbw are the mud
filtrate, gas, quartz, illite, and clay-bound water
photoelectric response parameters, respectively. If a
sum of volumes constraint on the two previous
response equations is expressed as:

WCLPillite
VILL 1
1 VXWA VXG VQTZ 1
1

WCLPillite

Then the volume of minerals and fluids can be

solved by simultaneous equations expressed in
matrix form as:

mf
bth
U U
th mf
1
1

quartz

illite

cbw WCLPillite

1 WCLPillite VXWA

WCLPillite VXG
U
U g U quartz Uillite cbw

1 WCLPillite VQTZ

WCLPillite
VILL
1
1
1
1 WCLPillite

Brittleness is a key factor in the formation

evaluation of shale gas reservoirs, particularly for
fracture stimulation design. As previously
mentioned, shale is characterized by very low
permeability therefore unexpelled gas in shale can
be produced if sufficient fractures are introduced in
wellbore. Understanding the mechanical properties
of shale can guide the placement of perforations and
fracture stages. The property of rock mechanics that
reflects the ability of the rock to fail under stress
and maintain a fracture is called brittleness
(Rickman et al., 2008). Brittle shale is more likely
to be naturally fractured and also more likely to
respond well to hydraulic fracturing treatments.
Ductile shale on the other hand, is not a good

producer because the formation will tend to heal

any natural or hydraulic fractures. Ductile shale,
however, makes a good seal, trapping the
hydrocarbons and preventing migration out of the
more brittle shale. Sonic logs are often used to
explore rock mechanic properties and the resulting
moduli during formation evaluation, by converting
compressional and shear wave velocity (together
with density logs) to Youngs modulus and
Poissons ratio. This moduli parameter is converted
to the brittleness index of the formation as shown
by Figure 5, to help quantify areas where fracture
conductivity is easier to achieve.
Poisson' sRatio 0.5

DTS 2 2 * DTC 2
DTS 2 DTC 2

Young' sModulus 2 *13475*

RHOB* (1 Poisson' sRatio)

DTS2

Where:
DTC

= Sonic compressional delta-time

(microseconds per foot)
DTS = Sonic shear delta-time (microseconds per
foot)
RHOB = bulk density (gram per cc)
Apart from brittleness, fracture closure stress
determination is also needed when designing
fracture stimulation programs. This case will use the
model from Barree et al. (2009) and shown below
as:

Pc

(Pob Ppore ) Ppore E t

(1 )

Where: Pc

Pob
Ppore

E
t

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

Closure pressure (psi)

Poissons ratio
Overburden pressure, psi
Pore pressure, psi
Biott coefficient
Strain coefficient
Youngs Modulus
regional horizontal stress

According to Barree et al., closure pressure is

assumed to be equal to the horizontal stresses. In
fracture design only the minimum stresses are
required. These may need to be adjusted to match
observed treating pressure or fracture containment.
The observed stresses can deviate from the
theoretical stresses for several reasons. A major
cause of variation is tectonic stress; which can be
induced by regional or local earth movements.

Closure pressure is also controlled by net

intergranular rock stresses and pore pressure. As a
productive reservoir layer is depleted it may
compact as more of the total overburden stress is
transferred to the rock framework. This
redistribution of stress causes the horizontal net
stress to increase, but at the same time the pore
pressure is decreased.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

TOC Estimation
A conventional triple combo log is provided from
the X-1 well for petropysical shale-gas evaluation.
This log is supported by 13 core samples for TOC
measurement both from Roseneath and Murteree
shale. As mentioned earlier, the Passey technique
attempts to predict TOC weight percentage from
continuous log data. Figure 6 shows the results from
this approach compared with the TOC weight
percentage measured from core samples. On this
log, we overlay the resistivity curve onto the
porosity curve (sonic, density and neutron) to get
the deltalogR separation. In the interval where there
is no deltalogR separation, the TOC percentage is
close to zero, meaning that the interval is not a richorganic zone. Calculated TOC from the deltalogR
method is then compared to the TOC from core
pyrolysis showing good correlation between the
continuous calculated TOC vs. the TOC
measurements. We may see some mismatch, such
as on the deltalogR from neutron log on the
Roseneath shale or on the deltalogR from the sonic
log on the Murteree shale. This error is minimized
by averaging using the Hodges-Lehman method as
seen on the last track. Thus, using the deltalogR
method we have a continuous TOC log as a mineral
input in the petrophysical calculation for the
kerogen volumetric.

Mineral and Fluid Volumetric

An XRD analysis was performed on an X-1 core
sample to obtain matrix weight percentage. The
sample is dominated by clay minerals of more than
40% in both the Roseneath and Murteree shale.
Quartz is also observed at up to 30 % with moderate
siderite of about 5-15 %. Other carbonate minerals,
such as calcite and dolomite are also present but in
trace amounts thus they are not considered for
mineral calculations using the petrophysical
probabilistic error minimization approach as
described in the methodology section.

Figure 7 provides a good review of the results

obtained from the probabilistic approach. The plot
shows most of the outputs and provides a visual
rendering of the measured log reconstruction. The
red curves on tracks 3-8 are the reconstruction logs
which mostly match the log inputs (black curves).
To validate the result, the weight percentages of
some minerals from the XRD analysis are plotted
along with the output curves as seen on the last
track. The orange curve on this track is a
continuous weight percentage of quartz, calculated
from the probabilistic method. It is a good match
with the quartz weight percentage from the XRD
measurement (black triangle dots). Similar
matching is also observed on siderite (magenta
curve vs. black circle dots) and clay minerals
(green curve vs black diamond dots). Final rock
volumetrics for the Roseneath and Murteree shale
is presented on the first track, showing the matrix
is dominanted by clay and quartz with small
amounts of siderite and K-feldspar. The solid
kerogen volume is around 5-15% based on the
TOC calculation, and there is the potential to
release sorbed gas if Langmuir pressure is
achieved. Total porosity is about 9-16 pu,
dominanted by clay-bound water up to 8 pu and
free gas has a maximum 6 pu which is the same as
the free water volume.
There is an opportunity to calculate gas resources
based on the above fluid volumetrics. The
resources will be calculated from both free gas and
sorbed gas. Free gas is the amount of gas stored in
effective porosity, defined as follows:

FGton

1
1 ft 3
454g 2000lb volGas

* Flag
RHOB 28316.848cc 1lb
1ton
Bg

Where:
FGton
RHOB
volGas
Bg

= free gas per ton (scf/ton)

= bulk density (g/cc)
= free gas volume (decp)
= Formation gas volume factor
(rcf/scf), calculated from:
Bg 0.0283 * Zfactor

Ftemp
Ppore
Zfactor
Flag

Ftemp 459.69
Ppore

= Formation temperature
= Pore pressure
= compressibility factor for natural gas
= net pay interval, defined by
Swe<80%, effective porosity>2pu,
and Vclay+clay-bound water<80%

Sorbed gas is the amount of gas that adsorbed onto

the kerogen surface under equilibrium conditions at
a given pressure and temperature. To predict the
amount of sorbed gas that can be released from the
kerogen, the Langmuir adsorption isotherm is
applied in the formula:
SGton Lv

Ppore

Ppore Lp TOC

where:
SGton = Sorbed gas per ton (scf/ton)
Lv
= Langmuir volume (scf/ton)
adjusted for TOC
Lp
= Langmuir pressure (psi)
Ppore
= reservoir pressure (psi)
TOC = total Organic Carbon (decp)
Based on these equations, the gas potential for the
Roseneath shale is 47.05 scf/ton for free gas and
29.87 scf/ton for sorbed gas while Murteree shale is
38.59 scf/ton for free gas and 29.08 scf/ton for
sorbed gas.
Mechanical Properties
To determine mechanical properties being the input
for pseudo brittleness, the elastic moduli (Youngs
modulus and Poissons ratio) are required as shown
in Figure 8. These elastic moduli are calculated
from the sonic slowness (compressional and shear
delta-time) and density logs, calibrated to the static
moduli using core triaxial test data. Track 6 shows
the dynamic moduli from the sonic log overlaid
with static moduli from core data. The dynamic
moduli logs have been converted to static moduli
using a regression relationship as defined by the
crossplot in Figure 9. Pseudo brittleness is defined
by combining Youngs Modulus and Poissons
Ratio as previously described by Figure 4. In terms
of Poissons Ratio, the lower the value, the more
brittle the rock. For Youngs Modulus as values
increase, the more brittle the rock (Rickman et al.,
2008). Figure 10 shows the brittleness in the X-1
well. The southwest corner is the quadrant where
brittleness is increasing and the northeast corner is
the ductile quadrant. This acoustic pseudo
brittleness is also adjusted by the brittleness
obtained from core measurements.
Using calibrated mechanical properties as
calculated above, closure pressure can be
determined. An equation from Barree (2002) is
applied by incorporating static Youngs modulus,

static Poissons ratio, overburden pressure, pore

pressure, and porosity. The calculated closure
pressure is presented on Figure 8 along with
estimated pore pressure and overburden pressure.
The closure pressure should be adjusted to the
actual injection test or mini-frac diagnostic to
accurate reflect delta stress due to regional
geological strain.
Supporting a Hydraulic Fracturing Program
Based on the results of the X-1 well petrophysical
rock mechanical determination, a hydraulic
fracturing program can be supported for shale gas in
this basin. However, the X-1 well is just an offset
well to the X-2 well where the hydraulic fracturing
program will be implemented. Core TOC and XRD
data to calibrate kerogen and mineral volume was not
available yet in X-2 well, thus a petrophysical

evaluation is performed based on parameters

applied to X-1 as presented previously. Rock
mechanical properties have a better chance to be
calibrated since X-2 has mini-frac diagnostic data.
Figure 11 shows the G-function of the mini-frac
data used to get actual closure pressure by adjusting
calculated closure pressure from rock mechanical
properties. There is a delta stress between actual vs.
calculated closure pressure of about 1700 psi. It
may be induced by regional or local earth
movement. A composite result of petrophysical and
rock mechanical properties of X-2 is shown in
Figure 12, including recommendations for hydraulic
fracturing design.
Based on formation brittleness, selection of fluid
type and proppant volumes are recommended as
shown in Table 1 (after Rickman et al., 2008). This
table is a compilation from frac jobs previously run
in US shale gas formations. If the brittleness is high
like in the Barnett shale, proppant concentrations
need to be low and the fluid system needs to be
high-volume water since the fracture geometry
becomes more complex. Therefore the proppant
may act more as a wedge, providing a high
conductivity flow path. As the brittleness decreases
or gets more ductile like the Eagleford shale, the
proppant concentrations need to be higher
(embedment) and placed in the formation with less
fluid (a hybrid or even an x-linked fluid). This will
insure good conductivity for a possible bi-wing
fracture geometry. In this case, the Roseneath and
Murteree shale are in the range of 3040%
brittleness. Therefore the treatment is recommended
as per the Eagleford shale. The recommendations
for proppant type are based on closure pressure as

per Figure 13 (Economides et al., 1998). The

calibrated closure pressure for both Roseneath and
Murteree shale is 7600-8600 psi suggesting a
proppant type of resin-coated sand to intermediate
strength ceramic or bauxite.
CONCLUSIONS
As shown through the extensive petrophysical
evaluations performed, Roseneath and Murteree
shales are sweet spots for shale-gas exploration
and production in Cooper Basin, Australia. TOC is
in the range of a good hydrocarbon producer (> 2
%). The petrophysical probabilistic method has
demonstrated a good match of mineral volumetrics
compared to core XRD analysis. The Roseneath and
Murteree shales are moderately occupied by brittle
minerals such as quartz and siderites, suggesting
these shales are fracture-inducible. Rock mechanic
analysis provides continuous brittleness estimation
along all formations, calibrated with static moduli
from core triaxial compressive tests. This shows
that the Roseneath and Murteree shales are in the
range of 30-40% brittleness. Rock mechanic
analysis also gives a calculated closure pressure of
around 7600 to 8600 psi, calibrated by a mini-frac
diagnostic.
A number of recommendations based on
mechanical properties have been demonstrated. The
recommendations are expected to obtain the best
design for a shale-gas hydraulic fracturing program
in the Cooper Basin, Australia.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The
author
gratefully
acknowledges
the
participation and release of data by Senex Energy
Ltd., Australia. Acknowledgement is also presented
to the Halliburton Production Enhancement team in
Australia for their kind cooperation. This paper
could not have been written without their full
support.
REFERENCES
Barree, R.D., Gilbert, J.V., and Conway, M.W.,
2009, Stress and Rock Property Profiling For
Unconventional Reservoir Stimulation, SPE
Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The
Woodlands, Texas, USA, 19-21 January 2009.
Buller, D., Hughes, S., Market, J., Petre, E., Spain,
D., and Odumosu, T., 2010, Petrophysical
Evaluation For Enhancing Hydraulic Stimulation in
Horizontal Shale Gas Wells, SPE Annual Technical

Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 19-22

September 2010.
Economides, M.J., Watters, L.T., and DunnNorman, S., 1998, Well Stimulation in Wiley, J.,
and Sons, Petroleum Well Construction, Chap 17, in
Rickman, R., Mullen, M., Petre, E., Grieser, B., and
Kundert, D., 2008, A Practical use of Shale
Petrophysics for Stimulation Design Optimization,
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Denver, Colorado, USA, 21-24 September 2008.

Passey, Q.R., Creaney, S., Kulla, J.B., Moretti, F.J.,

and Stroud, J.D., 1990, A Practical Model For
Organic Richness From Porosity And Resistivity
Logs: The American Association Of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin, V. 74 No. 12, p. 1777-1794.
Rickman, R., Mullen, M., Petre, E., Grieser, B., and
Kundert, D., 2008, A Practical use of Shale
Petrophysics for Stimulation Design Optimization,
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Denver, Colorado, USA, 21-24 September 2008

TABLE 1
STIMULATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON
BRITTLENESS CALCULATION

Figure 1 - A schematic of a petrophysical method used to evaluate shale-gas potential.

Figure 2 - Resistivity vs. porosity logs overlay showing deltalogR separation in the organic-rich
interval (Passey et al., 1990).

Figure 3 - DeltalogR transformation to Total Organic Carbon using Level of Maturity (after Passey
et al., 1990).

Figure 4 - A simple schematic of rock volumetrics.

Figure 5 - Crossplot of Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio showing the brittleness index
increasing to the southwest corner of the plot (After Rickman et al., 2008).

X900

Figure 6 - TOC determination using the deltalogR method. On tracks 4, 6, and 8 are the overlay
between the resistivity curve and the porosity curve (sonic, density, and neutron) to get
the deltalogR separation. Calculated TOC from the deltalogR method is also compared to
TOC from core pyrolysis (red dots) on track 5, 7, and 9. Error minimization by averaging
using the Hodges-Lehman method is presented on track 10.

X900

Figure 7 - Fluid and mineral volumetric calculation using a probabilistic approach. Red curves on
tracks 3-8 are the reconstruction logs which mostly match the log inputs (black curves).
The XRD weight percentages (black dots) are plotted along with the output curves as seen
on track 10.

X900

X900

Figure 8 - Rock mechanical properties log from the elastic moduli calculation. Track 6 shows the
dynamic moduli from the sonic log overlaid with static moduli from core data (black
dots). Calculated brittleness curves are compared to core brittleness measurements (blue
dots) on track 8.

Figure 9 - Dynamic vs. static moduli crossplot from core measurement, to convert elastic moduli
from sonic log.

Figure 10 - Crossplot of Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio from X-1 well data, showing the
brittleness index increasing to the southwest corner of the plot.

Roseneath

Figure 11 - G-function analysis from X-2 mini-frac diagnostic, to correct calculated closure pressure
from mechanical properties.

X500

Figure 12 - The final result of petrophysics to rock mechanics evaluation for the hydraulic fracturing
program for the X-2 well. Mini-frac data (blue dots) are plotted along with calculated.
closure pressure (red curve) on track 7.

Figure 13 - Proppant type recommendations based on closure pressure (Economides et al, 1998).