Accepted Manuscript

Porosity estimation in kerogen-bearing shale gas reservoirs

Hongyan Yu, Zhenliang Wang, Reza Rezaee, Yihuai Zhang, Tongcheng Han,
Muhammad Arif, Lukman Johnson

PII: S1875-5100(18)30082-9
DOI: 10.1016/j.jngse.2018.02.012
Reference: JNGSE 2468

To appear in: Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering

Received Date: 29 December 2017

Revised Date: 12 February 2018
Accepted Date: 17 February 2018

Please cite this article as: Yu, H., Wang, Z., Rezaee, R., Zhang, Y., Han, T., Arif, M., Johnson, L.,
Porosity estimation in kerogen-bearing shale gas reservoirs, Journal of Natural Gas Science &
Engineering (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2018.02.012.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Porosity estimation in kerogen-bearing shale gas reservoirs

Hongyan Yu1,2,3*, Zhenliang Wang1, Reza Rezaee3, Yihuai Zhang3, Tongcheng Han4,5*,

PT
Muhammad Arif3, Lukman Johnson3

RI
1
State Key Laboratory of Continental Dynamics; Department of Geology, Northwest

SC
University, Xi’an, 710069, China.
2
Research Institute of BGP, CNPC, Zhuozhou, 072750, China.

U
3
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Curtin University, 26 Dick Perry Avenue, 6151,
AN
Kensington, Australia.
4
School of Geosciences, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao, 266580,
M

China.
5
D

Laboratory for Marine Mineral Resources, Qingdao National Laboratory for Marine

Science and Technology, Qingdao, 266071, China.

TE
EP

*Corresponding Author: amelia-yu@hotmail.com (Hongyan Yu); hantc@upc.edu.cn

(Tongcheng Han)
C
AC

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Abstract

Porosity is a fundamental petrophysical parameter in shale gas reservoirs that governs the

space for hydrocarbon storage, and directly determines the free gas amount and absorbed gas

capability. Technically, in kerogen-bearing shales, well-log derived porosity may yield

inaccurate results as the porosity tools in response to both the kerogen and the liquid-filled

PT
pore spaces that are often undifferentiated. In this paper, we propose a new method for

RI
porosity estimation in kerogen-bearing shales, where porosity is assumed to be composed of

both matrix porosity and kerogen porosity. The kerogen responses of density, sonic and

SC
neutron logs are first calculated from experimental data to calibrate porosity logs with the

kerogen volume. The matrix porosity is then computed using the improved Wyllie equation

U
AN
based on the calibrated logging data with the kerogen influence removed. The kerogen

porosity is estimated by a mass-balance relation based on the original total organic carbon
M

(TOCo) and kerogen maturity characterized by the percentage of convertible organic carbon

(Cc) and the transformation ratio (TR). Application of the new method to a shale gas
D

reservoir in the Ordos Basin, China shows that the estimated porosity matches the core
TE

derived porosity satisfactorily well. Furthermore, the results also indicate that the shale

kerogen porosity is relatively higher than the shale matrix porosity when the kerogen amount
EP

and maturity are high. The results of the study lead to a better understanding of the shale
C

formation and thus contribute towards the better evaluation of shale gas reservoirs.
AC

Keywords: shale gas; wireline logs; matrix porosity; kerogen porosity.

1. Introduction

Kerogen-bearing shale gas reservoirs have gained massive attention all over the world in the

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
last few years as a supplement energy in the energy shortages (Jarvie et al., 2007; Yu et al.,

2017a; Yu et al., 2016a). Porosity is one of the vital parameters in the shale gas reservoirs

assessment (Ross and Bustin, 2009; Walls and Sinclair, 2011), and is also considered as one

of the critical variables that directly controls the free gas volume, adsorbed gas capacity

estimation and geo-mechanical properties (Wang and Reed, 2009). However, kerogen-bearing

PT
shale reservoirs usually contain abundant organic matter (Passey et al., 2010; Rezaee, 2015),

RI
which exhibits similar signature on porosity well-log data (e.g., low density, high sonic

transit time and high neutron porosity) as that of the matrix porosity (Zhu et al., 2011),

SC
making the identification of distinct matrix porosity and kerogen responses extremely

difficult. Previous studies demonstrate that, if original porosity logs are directly used in the

U
porosity calculation with empirical equations in shale reservoirs, porosity is generally
AN
overestimated due to the influence of kerogen (Passey et al., 1990; Sondergeld et al., 2010a;
M

Sondergeld et al., 2010b). Consequently, accurate porosity estimation in kerogen-bearing

shale reservoirs is challenging and conventional porosity models are not feasible.
D
TE

Generally, the porosity could be estimated from porosity well logs in shale gas reservoirs and

several approaches have been proposed in the former studies. For instance, many authors
EP

select Petrophysical model which commonly use wireline logs to generate a set of
C

simultaneous equations to compute the minerals volumes, kerogen volume, porosity

AC

saturation of each fluid (Arredondo-Ramírez et al., 2016; Jacobi et al., 2009; Jacobi et al.,

2008; Niculescu, 2010; Sondergeld et al., 2010a). This method is suitable to estimate the

formation composition, but is hard to accurately ascertain each coefficient if many unknown

parameters are required. Instead of using this method, Fu et al. (2015) calibrated the well logs

by multiplying a coefficient of 0.25 to the log data to make their results match the core-

derived porosity when they found that the raw density porosity logs in Barnett shale often

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
overestimated the true porosity owing to the effect of kerogen. However, since this coefficient

is derived from wells in an area with relatively high thermal maturity (Ro>0.8%), its

application to kerogen with varying thermal maturity will be problematic as apparently

thermal maturity will influence the kerogen porosity. Therefore, there is an apparent lack of

knowledge available for porosity estimation that takes into account the effect of kerogen on

PT
shale porosity.

RI
The porosity estimation is also further complicated by the presence of a variety of pores in

SC
shale gas reservoirs (Yu et al., 2016b; Yu et al., 2017b). In this paper, the total porosity in the

shale gas reservoirs is assumed to be composed of both matrix porosity and organic porosity

U
(Alfred and Vernik, 2012). Consequently, traditional methods are not suitable for the kerogen-
AN
bearing shale reservoir. In this context, we propose this new method of porosity estimation in
M

the shale gas reservoir. The matrix porosity is accurately calculated from the well-logs after

the calibration of kerogen response, and the organic porosity is estimated using a mass-
D

balance method based on the original total organic carbon (TOCo) and kerogen maturity. We
TE

take a shale gas reservoir in YC Formation, south-eastern Ordos Basin as an example to

verify this technique, and the results show that the predicted matrix and organic porosity are
EP

finally quality checked with the core derived total porosity.

C
AC

2. Method and technique

Organic rich shales are composed of kerogen, non-kerogen matrix and matrix porosity (which

is also called non-organic porosity) (Alfred and Vernik, 2012; Curtis et al., 2011; Modica and

Lapierre, 2012; Shabro et al., 2012), schematically illustrated in the proposed shale

configuration model (Figure 1). Here, unlike in conventional reservoirs, kerogen porosity in

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
shale gas reservoirs also plays a vital role in estimating the total gas storage capacity. Hence,

in this study, we consider the total porosity as a combination of both matrix and kerogen

porosity.

Non-kerogen Matrix Matrix-Porosity Kerogen

PT
RI
SC
Water Hydrocarbon Kerogen
Matrix
Kerogen
Porosity

U
AN Total Porosity

Figure 1. Proposed porosity configuration for kerogen-bearing shales.

M

We developed a workflow for porosity estimation in shale gas reservoirs, as shown in Figure

2. Firstly, appropriate calibrations are applied to the porosity well logs to account for the
D

effect of kerogen because conventional porosity estimation technique will yield inaccurate
TE

results due to the presence of kerogen. For calibration, the logging responses of the kerogen
EP

are calculated, and subsequently eliminated from the well logs responses, referred to as the

kerogen calibrated log. This allows for the calculation of the true matrix porosity, using the
C

improved Wyllie equation. Furthermore, the original organic carbon content of shales and its
AC

maturity are used to calculate the kerogen porosity. Finally, a more reliable total porosity

measurement from well logs is obtained.

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP

Figure 2. The workflow of porosity estimation in shale gas reservoir.

C

2.1. Kerogen volume computation

AC

Present TOC values are necessary to obtain the data of kerogen volume which is a crucial

variable in the matrix porosity estimation and to get the original organic carbon content

(TOCo) which is a key parameter during kerogen porosity calculation. Routine pyrolysis

experiments often provide TOC information from specific intervals in a formation, however,

it is common knowledge that the TOC values vary significantly from well-to-well and across

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
the formations. We thus calculate TOC with well logging data to capture the TOC distribution

at a finer scale. Firstly, Passey method (Passey et al., 1990) is applied to compute DlogR:

RD
D log R = lg( ) + 0.02 × (∆t − ∆tbaseline ) (1)
RDbaseline

PT
where, RD is the true formation resistivity from deep resistivity well logs; ∆t is sonic transit

RI
time from sonic logs; RDbaseline and ∆tbaseline are the baseline values of true formation

SC
resistivity and transit time, respectively (note: the baseline is where the two logs intersect in

the inorganic matter shale section with specific fixed scale, see Passey et al., 1990). Then, we

U
used core derived TOC and DlogR to build a linear regression:
AN
TOC = A×Dlog R+ B
M

(2)
D

In the case of this study, A and B are set up as 2.5572 and 0.5163 respectively from 346
TE

experiment pyrolysis data, see Figure 3.

C EP
AC

Figure 3. The cross-plot of DlogR versus TOC (wt%).

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The continuous TOC logs are then subsequently utilized to calculate kerogen volume using

Tissot and Welte (Tissot and Welte, 1984a) model, see Equation (3):

γ TOC * ρ b 1
Vk = ×

PT
(3)
ρk 100

RI
where, Vk is the kerogen volume fraction; TOC is obtained by equation (2); ρb is the rock

SC
bulk density from bulk density log (g/cm3); ρk is the kerogen density (g/cm3) which is

obtained from a correlation of reciprocal of grain density versus TOC, see Equation (4); is

U
kerogen conversion factor proposed by Tissot and Welte (Tissot and Welte, 1984a) and the
AN
value selection criteria is shown in Table 1.
M

Table 1. Conversion factors for TOC to kerogen (Tissot and Welte, 1984a).
D

Type of Kerogen
TE

Stage Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ

Diagenesis 1.25 1.34 1.48

EP

End of Catagenesis 1.20 1.19 1.18

C

In the case of this study, most of the shale intervals are at the end of Catagenesis stage. From
AC

a number of 153 Rock-Eval pyrolysis results, kerogen type distribution is as follows: typeⅠ

is 40%, typeⅡ is 30% and typeⅢ is 30%. Thus, the conversion factor is calculated as 1.191

(1.2×40% + 1.19×30% + 1.18×30% = 1.191). Finally, the kerogen volume log is calculated

by equation (3).

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2.2. Well log responses in kerogen-bearing formations

The responses of kerogen on porosity logs include: 1) density response, 2) sonic response and

3) neutron response.

PT
First, we can obtain kerogen density using the correlation between grain density and TOC

data, see Equation (4) (Crain, 2000):

RI
SC
1
= a × TOC + b (4)
ρ grain

U
In equation (4), ρ grain is the shale matrix density ( ρ ma ) when TOC = 0; while, ρ grain is the
AN
kerogen density ( ρk ) when TOC = 100%.
M
D

In the case of this study, a and b are acquired from the linear regression shown in Figure 4 by

26 tested samples. Then, we get the shale matrix density of 2.71 g/cm3 and the kerogen
TE

density of 1.1 g/cm3 by Equation (4).

C EP
AC

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
0.44

Reciprocal of grain density (cc/g)

0.43
0.42
0.41
0.4
0.39
0.38

PT
0.37
0.36
0.35

RI
0.34
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
TOC (wt%)

SC
Figure 4. The relationship between the weight percentage of TOC (wt%) and

U
the reciprocal of grain density (cm3/g).
AN
Second to determine the sonic log response of kerogen ( ∆tk ), two shale samples from shale
M

gas reservoir with similar mineral composition (non-organic matrix), but different TOC
D

content are selected to build a systematic mass balance approach.

TE

∆ t1 = ∆ t k × Vk 1 + ∆ t f × φ1 + ∆ t nk × V nk 1 (5)
EP

∆ t 2 = ∆ t k × Vk 2 + ∆ t f × φ 2 + ∆ t nk × Vnk 2 (6)

φi = 1-Vnki -Vki (7)

C
AC

where, ∆ t nk is the sonic transit time in the non-kerogen part without fluid which is another

unknown in this equation set, µs/m; ∆ t1 and ∆t2 (µs/m) are the measured parameters of sonic

transit times in the full brine saturated shale samples (the detailed experimental procedures

refer to: Kausik et al., 2014; Testamanti and Rezaee, 2017) obtained through ultrasonic test;

∆ t f is the transit time in brine, 620 µs/m; Vk1 and Vk2 are kerogen volume of these two

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
samples calculated by equation (3); Vnk1 and Vnk2 are non-kerogen volumes calculated from

dry samples as follows:

W dry − W k
Vnk = (8)
ρ ma

PT
Wdry = ρ dry × V (9)

Wk = ρk ×Vk (10)

RI
SC
where, Wdry is the weight of dry rock (the detailed experimental procedures refer to: Bush and

U
Jenkins, 1970; Soeder, 1988; Zamirian et al., 2015); Wk is the kerogen weight; ρma is the shale
AN
matrix density from Equation (4), g/cm3; ρ dry is the dry samples density, g/cm3; V is rock
M

volume.
D

In the case of this study, two samples are tested with transit time of 277.6 µs/m and 290.7
TE

µs/m from ultrasonic test data, TOC of 2.3% and 6.2%, dry samples density of 2.43 g/cm3

and 2.38 g/cm3, respectively. We thus get the kerogen volume as 0.06 and 0.16 by Equation
EP

(3), and non-kerogen volume are 0.892 and 0.814 by Equation (5), (6). Then, the kerogen
C

sonic response and matrix sonic response are 531 µs/m and 232 µs/m, respectively.
AC

Thirdly, the neutron log response is quantified by the hydrogen index (HI) of the rock

(Gaymard and Poupon, 1968; Passey et al., 1990). In petrophysical evaluation, the hydrogen

index (HI) is the ratio of hydrogen partial concentration of material to the partial

concentration of water (Serra, 1983) (note: the hydrogen index here is different from the

hydrogen index (HI) in organic geochemistry in the latter case, which represents the ratio of

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
the amount of hydrogen to the amount of the organic carbon). The partial concentration of

hydrogen is the mass of the hydrogen atoms divided by the mass of all atoms for all elements

(Eslinger and Pevear, 1988). The hydrogen index of kerogen is expressed as follows (Dunn et

al., 2002; Freedman et al., 1998; Sondergeld et al., 2010b):

PT
ρk × mkH
HI = (11)
ρw × mwH

RI
SC
where, ρ k is kerogen density, g/cm3; mkH is the weight percentage of hydrogen in kerogen,

and the average weight percentages of elements for each type of kerogen are shown on Table

U
2 (Tissot and Welte, 1984b); ρ w is water density, 1.0 g/cm3; mwH is the hydrogen weight
AN
percentage of water, 1/9 (Freedman et al., 1998).
M

Table 2. Average weight percentages of elements that make up typical kerogen (Tissot and
D

Welte, 1984b).
TE

Kerogen Type Weight percentage

C H O N S
EP

Type I 78.8 8.8 7.7 2.0 2.7

Type II 77.8 6.8 10.5 2.2 2.7

C

Type III 82.5 4.6 10.5 2.1 0.2

AC

The average kerogen type percentages in this study are discussed in section 2. Then, the

weight percentage of hydrogen in kerogen mkH in the study case can be given as 8.8×50% +

6.8×30% + 4.6×20% = 1.193. Therefore, from Equation (11), the kerogen neutron response

(HI) is calculated as 0.7286.

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2.3. Well logs calibration

For well log calibration, inputs from well log responses for kerogen (section 2.2) are utilized.

The elimination of the kerogen effects on well logs is subsequently performed, and the well

log balance Equation (12) expressed as follows:

PT
Log = Log k × Vk + Log nk × (1 − Vk ) (12)

RI
SC
Therefore, to calibrate well logs, Equation (12) is rearranged as:

U
Log − Log k × V k
Log c = Log nk = (13)
1 − Vk
AN
M

where, Logc is the calibrated well log which also equal to the well logging response of non-

kerogen material; Logk is the well logging response of kerogen .

D
TE

Therefore, for specific log calibrations, the corresponding logs replace Log in Equation (13),
EP

therefore, density, sonic and neutron porosity logs calibration are shown in Equations (14),

(15) and (16) respectively.

C
AC

ρ b − ρ k × Vk
ρ bc = (14)
1 − Vk

∆ t − ∆ t k × Vk
∆ tc = (15)
1 − Vk

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
NPHI − NPHI k × Vk
NPHI c = (16)
1 − Vk

where, ρk represents kerogen density, g/cm3; ρbc is the calibrated bulk density log, g/cm3;

ρb is bulk density log, g/cm3; ∆tk is sonic transit time in kerogen, µs/m; ∆tc is calibrated

PT
sonic log, us/m; ∆t is sonic log, µs/m; NPHI k is neutron response for the kerogen, fraction;

RI
NPHI c is the calibrated neutron log, fraction; NPHI is the neutron log, faction; and Vk is the

kerogen volume fraction.

SC
2.4. Matrix porosity estimation

U
AN
As a final step for the calculation of matrix porosity, Wyllie equation (Wyllie, 1963;

Gaymard and Poupon, 1968; Schmidt et al. 1971) is used as follows:

M

log ma − logch
φ=
D

(17)
log ma − log f
TE

where, logch is kerogen calibrated and hydrocarbon corrected log shown in the next
EP

paragraph; lo g f is the fluid well log response; lo g m a is the matrix response of porosity log.
C

The matrix sonic log response ∆ t ma ( = ∆tnk ) is calculated from Equation (5) and (6) and
AC

matrix density is calculated from Equation (4). The neutron matrix response can be calculated

by Equation (16) as a function of matrix mineral proportion which comes from XRD;

In this paper, we take density log as an example. Therefore, Equation (17) can be specified as

equation (18):

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ρma − ρch
φ= (18)
ρma − ρ f

where: ρ m a is the matrix density, g/cm3; ρ ch is the kerogen calibrated and hydrocarbon

corrected density, g/cm3; ρ f is the fluid density, g/cm3.

PT
RI
Moreover, in shale gas reservoirs, hydrocarbon correction is also necessary for accurate

porosity computation besides the initial kerogen calibration. The equation (19) (Gaymard and

SC
Poupon, 1968; Schmidt et al., 1971) is utilized for hydrocarbon correction:

U
ρ bc = φ ( ρ mf − AS hr ) + Vclay ρ clay + (1 − φ − Vclay ) ρ ma
AN
(19)
M

where, ρbc is the kerogen calibrated density, g/cm3; ρ m f is the density of mud filtrate, g/cm3;
D

−φ AS hr is the hydrocarbon effect; S hr is the residual hydrocarbon saturation, fraction and can
TE

1
 a × Rmf  n
be calculated by S hr = 1 −  m 
(the cementation factor m is 1.8 and a saturation
 Rxo × φ 
EP

exponent n is 1.7 are employed for our shale samples, refer to: Luffel and Guidry (1992),

Ramirez et al. (2011), Zhao et al. (2007) and Yu and Aguilera (2011)); and the coefficient
C

A = 1.07 (1.11 −1.5Pmf ) ρmf −1.24ρh  .

AC

Since Equation (19) is specific to shaly sand reservoirs where the matrix generally comes

from the framework of grains, with low clay proportions. However, the matrix in shale

reservoir is clay and negligible grains proportion, and then, the matrix of the shale is non-

organic matrix. Thus, the equation is modified as:

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

ρ bc = φ ( ρ mf − AS hr ) + (1 − φ ) ρ ma (20)

Then,

PT
ρ bc = φρ mf + (1 − φ ) ρ ma − φ AS hr (21)

RI
Then, ρ ch is expressed as in terms of equation (22),

U SC
ρch = ρbc + φ AShr (22)
AN
Finally, Equation (18) is used to compute the matrix porosity.
M

2.5. Kerogen porosity calculation

D

Kerogen porosity plays an important role in organic-rich shale reservoirs (Curtis et al., 2011),
TE

formed as a result of the generation and expulsion for hydrocarbon (Romero-Sarmiento et al.,
EP

2013), and it is a function of thermal maturity and TOC. An equation was proposed to

calculate kerogen porosity using mass-balance relation (Peters et al., 2005).

C
AC

ρb
φ k = ([TOC o × C c ] γ ) TR (23)
ρk

Where, TOCo is the original organic carbon content, wt%; Cc is the percentage of convertible

organic carbon which represents the ratio of total convertible organic carbon to total original

organic carbon, Figure 5; γ is the kerogen conversion factor, 1.191 (Table 1); TR is the

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
transformation ratio representing the ratio of the converted convertible organic carbon to the

total convertible organic carbon, Figure 5; ρk is the kerogen density, g/cm3; ρb is the bulk

density (g/cm3), obtained from bulk density log.

Convertible organic carbon

PT
Converted

Bitumen
Remained
convertible Inertia organic
convertible
organic carbon

RI
organic carbon
carbon

TOCo

SC
Figure 5. Schematic of organic carbon composition.

U
PS: inertia here means dead.
AN
The transformation ratio (TR) and the percentage of convertible organic carbon (Cc) are a
M

function of original hydrogen index (HIo). The original hydrogen index (HIo) can be

calculated from the present kerogen type proportion using the following equation (Peters et
D

al., 2005).
TE

TypeI TypeII TypeIII TypeIV

EP

HI o = × 750 + × 450 + ×125 + × 50 (24)

100 100 100 100
C

In the case of this study, the original hydrogen index (HIo) is 472.5 mg/g based on the
AC

composition of kerogen types.

Daly and Edman (1987) built the relationship between original hydrogen index (HIo) and

convertible carbon fraction (Cc) using experimental data.

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Cc = 0.085 × HI o (25)

Thus, here, the convertible carbon fraction (Cc) is 40.16%.

Claypool equations (Peters et al., 2005) were chosen to get the transformation ratio (TR). The

PT
mathematical representation of TR is given as the change of original hydrogen index to

RI
present hydrogen index, as well as the original production index. The equation is shown as

follows (Peters et al., 2005):

SC
HI p 1200 − HI o (1 − PI o ) 

U
TR = 1 − (26)
HI o 1200 − HI p (1 − PI p ) 
AN
M

where: HIp is the present hydrogen index, 221 mg/g from experiment pyrolysis data; HIo is

the original hydrogen index; PIp is the present production index which is equal to S1 / (S1 +
D

S2), 0.27, where, S1 is free hydrocarbons, S2 is potential hydrocarbon; PIo is the original
TE

production index with constant value of 0.02 (Peters et al., 2005); Finally, the transformation

ratio (TR) of 61.15% is obtained (Equation 26).

C EP

Then, TOCo can be calculated by equation (27) (Modica and Lapierre, 2012):
AC

TOC
TOC o = (27)
1 − TR × C c

Equation (27) is modified with the values from the research area.

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
TOCo = 1.325 × TOC (28)

Therefore, inserting TOCo into Equation (23), with Conversion factors γ (1.191) and kerogen

density (ρk=1.1g/cm3), kerogen porosity will be calculated by Equation (29).

PT
φk = 0.35×TOCρb (29)

RI
where: ρb is bulk density (g/cm3) from bulk density log.

SC
3. Case study

U
Based on the proposed method in this study, a shale gas reservoir in YC Formation, south-
AN
eastern Ordos Basin is selected, which is one of the most important shale gas reservoirs in

China (He et al., 2016). The YC formation (Upper Triassic) sediments are mostly derived
M

from fluvial and lacustrine sedimentary environment. Fluvial systems dominated the initial

deposits of the Upper Triassic sedimentation, subsequently followed by crustal subsidence

D

that ultimately induced lacustrine settings. The deposition of the YC formation occurred at a
TE

flourishing period in the basin development, with deep and semi-deep lake sedimentary
EP

environments (Zhang et al., 1998). The mineral compositions of the shale samples indicates

the presence of quartz, feldspar, clay, and minor amounts of calcite, dolomite, pyrite, and
C

siderite. The core derived TOC shows values varying between 1.0 wt% to 14 wt%, with over
AC

70% of the data concentrated between 2 wt% to 7 wt% in this research area. The calculated

TOC and kerogen volume (Vk) shown in the Track 4 matched reasonably well with core

derived TOC (Figure 6). We also computed the matrix porosity with kerogen calibrated well

logs and calculated kerogen porosity with the methods we proposed in this paper. The matrix

porosity and kerogen porosity both varied from 2% to 6% in research area. The total porosity

in the research area approximately from 2% to 8%, measured through the difference between

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
bulk volume of shale samples and the grain volume of the crushed, cleaned and dried shale

samples, shows similar porosity range with that of the extensive organic shales (Chalmers et

al., 2012; Furmann et al., 2016; He et al., 2016; Ju and Wu, 2016; Mastalerz et al., 2013;

Sondergeld et al., 2010; Wei et al., 2016). However, the porosity of organic shales is much

less than that of the non-organic shales which could be caused by the presence of the kerogen,

PT
especially over mature kerogen that has an effect of reducing the porosity.

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE

Figure. 6. The results of study case. Track 1 is GR, SP, and CAL lithology wireline logs;
Track 2 shows RD, RS, and Rxo resistivity wireline logs; Track 3 shows the depth; Track 4 is
EP

DlogR, the predicted TOC and kerogen volume percentage; Track 5 is the sonic logs before
and after calibration; Track 6 is neutron logs before and after calibration; Track 7 is density
logs before and after calibration; Track 8 is the matrix porosity and kerogen porosity; Track 9
C

is the log derived and core derived total porosity.

AC

In summary, the results show that the matrix porosity varies from 2% to 6% with an average

of 4%, whilst, the kerogen porosity, also shown on the Track 8 of Figure 6, contributes a

higher percentage to the total porosity in thermally mature rocks varying from 3% to 6% with

an average of 4.5%. Finally, the predicted matrix and kerogen porosity (which sums up to

total shale porosity) agrees well with the experimental data while traditional method without

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
kerogen calibration show overestimated values, see track 9 (blue line: total porosity as

computed here and solid black points are the experimental core porosity data) and the detail

values see Table 3. In addition, the results calculated from the traditional method (which does

not consider kerogen influence) are presented in track 9 (Figure 6), indicating considerable

deviation from the experimental data. Such results broaden the understanding of the pore

PT
characteristics in shale gas reservoir and revealed the significance of kerogen porosity.

RI
Table 3. A comparative table with the core derived total porosity values and the

SC
corresponding computed total porosity values.

Core derived Total porosity Total porosity

U
Number total porosity new method traditional method
（%） （%） （%）
AN
1 6.0 7.40 16.79
2 8.3 6.73 17.45
3 7.0 7.91 17.29
M

4 6.5 7.60 17.01

5 7.5 10.19 24.21
6 8.0 8.07 20.77
D

7 6.0 6.37 15.43

8 5.0 5.87 15.09
TE

9 7.8 7.12 14.01

10 3.0 2.33 8.55
11 3.7 3.78 9.51
EP

12 5.3 4.48 9.99

13 4.9 4.89 10.62
C
AC

4. Conclusion

Porosity estimation in shale gas reservoirs is more challenging when compared with the

conventional reservoirs due to the influence of kerogen. We thus proposed a new method to

estimate porosity in shale gas reservoirs based on kerogen calibration. Kerogen, which is an

integral part in kerogen-bearing shale reservoir, typically exhibits similar well log signature

as that shown by porosity. This method identified the well logging responses of kerogen in

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
sonic, density, and neutron porosity logs. These are subsequently calibrated from the wireline

porosity logs with the volume and response of kerogen. Furthermore, we conducted advanced

Wyllie equation for porosity calculation in the shale gas reservoir and emphasized the effect

of hydrocarbon. Then, the matrix porosity is finally calculated accurately. Kerogen porosity is

also estimated from well logs using the original TOC and organic maturity. The results

PT
demonstrated that the kerogen porosity is higher than matrix porosity in high TOC and

RI
mature shale gas reservoir.

SC
We thus concluded that the method proposed in this paper is an efficient tool which can

accurately detect shale gas reservoir porosity from the wireline log data, and ultimately yield

U
improve porosity characterization for modeling of enhanced shale gas recovery.
AN
M

Acknowledgements
D

This study was supported by Special Fund from the State Key Laboratory of Continental
TE

Dynamics at Northwest University in China and the Donors of the Shaanxi Province

Specialized Research Fund of Higher Education (Grant No. 14JK1740).

EP

References
C
AC

Alfred, D., Vernik, L., 2012. A new petrophysical model for organic shales, SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging
Symposium. Society of Petrophysicists and Well-Log Analysts.
Arredondo-Ramírez, K., Ponce-Ortega, J.M., El-Halwagi, M.M., 2016. Optimal planning and infrastructure
development for shale gas production. Energy Conversion and Management 119, 91-100.
Bush, D. C., Jenkins, R. E., 1970. Proper hydration of clays for rock property determinations. Journal of
Petroleum Technology 22, 800-804.
Chalmers, G. R., Bustin, R. M., Power, I. M., 2012. Characterization of gas shale pore systems by porosimetry,
pycnometry, surface area, and field emission scanning electron microscopy/transmission electron microscopy
image analyses: Examples from the Barnett, Woodford, Haynesville, Marcellus, and Doig units. AAPG bulletin

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
96, 1099-1119.
Crain, E., 2000. Crain’s petrophysical handbook. Spectrum.
Curtis, M.E., Ambrose, R.J., Sondergeld, C.H., Rai, C.S., 2011. Investigation of the relationship between
organic porosity and thermal maturity in the Marcellus Shale, North American Unconventional Gas Conference
and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Dunn, K.-J., Bergman, D.J., LaTorraca, G.A., 2002. Nuclear magnetic resonance: Petrophysical and logging
applications. Elsevier.

PT
Eslinger, E., Pevear, D.R., 1988. Clay minerals for petroleum geologists and engineers. Society of Economic
Paleontologists and Mineralogists.
Freedman, R., Minh, C.C., Gubelin, G., Freeman, J., McGinness, T., Terry, B., Rawlence, D., 1998. Combining

RI
NMR and density logs for petrophysical analysis in gas-bearing formations, SPWLA 39th Annual Logging
Symposium. Society of Petrophysicists and Well-Log Analysts.

SC
Fu, Q., Horvath, S.C., Potter, E.C., Roberts, F., Tinker, S.W., Ikonnikova, S., Fisher, W.L., Yan, J., 2015. Log-
derived thickness and porosity of the Barnett Shale, Fort Worth basin, Texas: Implications for assessment of gas
shale resources. AAPG Bulletin 99, 119-141.

U
Furmann, A., Mastalerz, M., Bish, D., Schimmelmann, A., Pedersen, P. K., 2016. Porosity and pore size
distribution in mudrocks from the Belle Fourche and Second White Specks Formations in Alberta, Canada.
AN
AAPG bulletin 100, 1265-1288.
Gaymard, R., Poupon, A., 1968. Response of neutron and formation density logs in hydrocarbon bearing
formations. The Log Analyst 9.
M

Glorioso, J. C., Rattia, A., 2012. Unconventional reservoirs: Basic petrophysical concepts for shale gas. in
SPE/EAGE European Unconventional Resources Conference & Exhibition-From Potential to Production.
D

He, J., Ding, W., Jiang, Z., Li, A., Wang, R., Sun, Y., 2016. Logging identification and characteristic analysis of
the lacustrine organic-rich shale lithofacies: A case study from the Es 3 L shale in the Jiyang Depression, Bohai
TE

Bay Basin, Eastern China. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 145, 238-255.
Jacobi, D.J., Breig, J.J., LeCompte, B., Kopal, M., Hursan, G., Mendez, F.E., Bliven, S., Longo, J., 2009.
Effective geochemical and geomechanical characterization of shale gas reservoirs from the wellbore
EP

environment: Caney and the Woodford shale, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of
Petroleum Engineers.
C

Jacobi, D.J., Gladkikh, M., LeCompte, B., Hursan, G., Mendez, F., Longo, J., Ong, S., Bratovich, M., Patton,
G.L., Shoemaker, P., 2008. Integrated petrophysical evaluation of shale gas reservoirs, CIPC/SPE Gas
AC

Technology Symposium 2008 Joint Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Jarvie, D.M., Hill, R.J., Ruble, T.E., Pollastro, R.M., 2007. Unconventional shale-gas systems: The
Mississippian Barnett Shale of north-central Texas as one model for thermogenic shale-gas assessment. AAPG
bulletin 91, 475-499.
Ju, B., Wu, D., 2016. Experimental study on the pore characteristics of shale rocks in Zhanhua depression.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 146, 121-128.
Kausik, R., Fellah, K., Rylander, E., Singer, P. M., Lewis, R. E., Sinclair, S., 2014. NMR Petrophysics for tight
oil shale enabled by core resaturation. International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts.
Luffel, D., Guidry, F., 1992. New core analysis methods for measuring reservoir rock properties of Devonian

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
shale. Journal of Petroleum Technology 44, 1184-1190.
Mastalerz, M., Schimmelmann, A., Drobniak, A., Chen, Y., 2013. Porosity of Devonian and Mississippian New
Albany Shale across a maturation gradient: Insights from organic petrology, gas adsorption, and mercury
intrusion. AAPG bulletin 97, 1621-1643.
Modica, C.J., Lapierre, S.G., 2012. Estimation of kerogen porosity in source rocks as a function of thermal
transformation: Example from the Mowry Shale in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming. AAPG bulletin 96, 87-
108.

PT
Niculescu, B. M, 2010. Forward modeling of ultra-long spacing electrical logs. Journal of Petroleum Science
and Engineering 73, 238-247.
Passey, Q., Creaney, S., Kulla, J., Moretti, F., Stroud, J., 1990. A practical model for organic richness from

RI
porosity and resistivity logs. AAPG bulletin 74, 1777-1794.
Passey, Q.R., Bohacs, K., Esch, W.L., Klimentidis, R., Sinha, S., 2010. From oil-prone source rock to gas-

SC
producing shale reservoir-geologic and petrophysical characterization of unconventional shale gas reservoirs,
International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Peters, K.E., Walters, C.C., Moldowan, J., 2005. The Biomarker Guide. Biomarkers and isotopes in the

U
environment and human history, vol. 1. Cambridge, New York.
Ramirez, T. R., Klein, J. D., Bonnie, R., Howard, J. J., 2011. Comparative study of formation evaluation
AN
methods for unconventional shale gas reservoirs: Application to the Haynesville shale (Texas). in North
American Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Rezaee, R., 2015. Fundamentals of gas shale reservoirs. John Wiley & Sons.
M

Romero-Sarmiento, M.-F., Ducros, M., Carpentier, B., Lorant, F., Cacas, M.-C., Pegaz-Fiornet, S., Wolf, S.,
Rohais, S., Moretti, I., 2013. Quantitative evaluation of TOC, organic porosity and gas retention distribution in a
D

gas shale play using petroleum system modeling: Application to the Mississippian Barnett Shale. Marine and
Petroleum Geology 45, 315-330.
TE

Ross, D.J., Bustin, R.M., 2009. The importance of shale composition and pore structure upon gas storage
potential of shale gas reservoirs. Marine and Petroleum Geology 26, 916-927.
Serra, O., 1983. Fundamentals of well-log interpretation.
EP

Shabro, V., Torres-Verdin, C., Sepehrnoori, K., 2012. Forecasting gas production in organic shale with the
combined numerical simulation of gas diffusion in kerogen, Langmuir desorption from kerogen surfaces, and
C

advection in nanopores, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Soeder, D. J., 1988. Porosity and permeability of eastern Devonian gas shale. SPE formation evaluation 3, 116-
AC

124.
Sondergeld, C., Ambrose, R., Rai, C., Moncrieff, J., 2010a. Micro-structural studies of gas shales: SPE
Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, February 23–25, 2010. SPE-131771-MS, 17 p., doi:
10.2118/131771-MS.
Sondergeld, C.H., Newsham, K.E., Comisky, J.T., Rice, M.C., Rai, C.S., 2010b. Petrophysical considerations in
evaluating and producing shale gas resources, SPE Unconventional Gas Conference. Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
Testamanti, M. N., Rezaee, R., 2017. Determination of NMR T2 cut-off for clay bound water in shales: A case
study of Carynginia Formation, Perth Basin, Western Australia. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
149, 497-503.
Tissot, B.P., Welte, D.H., 1984a. Diagenesis, catagenesis and metagenesis of organic matter, Petroleum
Formation and Occurrence. Springer, pp. 69-73.
Tissot, B.P., Welte, D.H., 1984b. From kerogen to petroleum, Petroleum Formation and Occurrence. Springer,
pp. 160-198.
Walls, J.D., Sinclair, S.W., 2011. Eagle Ford shale reservoir properties from digital rock physics. First Break 29,
97-101.

PT
Wang, F.P., Reed, R.M., 2009. Pore networks and fluid flow in gas shales, SPE annual technical conference and
exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Wei, W., Zhu, X., Meng, Y., Xiao, L., Xue, M., Wang, J., 2016. Porosity model and its application in tight gas

RI
sandstone reservoir in the southern part of West Depression, Liaohe Basin, China. Journal of Petroleum Science
and Engineering 141, 24-37.

SC
Wyllie, M. R. J., 1963. The fundamentals of well log interpretation, Academic Press.
Yu, H., Wang, Z., Rezaee, R., Arif, M., Xiao, L., 2016a. Characterization of Elastic Properties of Lacustrine
Shale Reservoir Using Well Logging and Core Analysis. in SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and

U
Exhibition: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Yu, H., Wang, Z., Rezaee, R., Zhang, Y., Xiao, L., Luo, X., Wang, X. and Zhang, L., 2016a. The Gaussian
AN
Process Regression for TOC Estimation Using Wireline Logs in Shale Gas Reservoirs. in International
Petroleum Technology Conference: International Petroleum Technology Conference.
Yu, H., Wang, Z., Rezaee, R., Su, Y., Tan, W., Yuan, Y., Zhang, Y., Xiao, L., Liu, X., 2017b. Applications of
M

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) Logs in Shale Gas Reservoirs for Pore Size Distribution Evaluation. in:
Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTEC).
D

Yu, H., Rezaee, R., Wang, Z., Han, T., Zhang, Y., Arif, M., Johnson, L., 2017b. A new method for TOC
estimation in tight shale gas reservoirs. International Journal of Coal Geology 179, 269-277.
TE

Zamirian, M., Aminian, K., Ameri, S., 2015. Measurement of Key Shale Petrophysical Properties. SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Zhao, H., Givens, N. B., Curtis, B., 2007. Thermal maturity of the Barnett Shale determined from well-log
EP

analysis. AAPG bulletin 91, 535-549.

Zhu, Y., Liu, E., Martinez, A., Payne, M.A., Harris, C.E., 2011. Understanding geophysical responses of shale-
C

gas plays. The Leading Edge 30, 332-338.

AC

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The well-logging responses of kerogen have been calculated in different ways.

Matrix porosity is obtained with kerogen calibrated well logs.

Kerogen porosity is calculated with the original TOC and thermal maturity

parameters.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC