SPE 133128

Quantifying Source Rock Maturity From Logs: How To Get More Than TOC
From Delta Log R
B. LeCompte,* SPE, and G. Hursan, SPE, Baker Hughes

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 19–22 September 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed
by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Thermal maturity is the primary factor that determines whether a source rock will produce oil, gas, or condensate. Two new
methods for estimating the thermal maturity of source rocks from log data have been developed. First, the delta log R equation has
been re-arranged to solve for level of maturity and correlated to vitrinite reflectance. Second, a method to determine kerogen
density from log and core data is presented. Examples from the Barnett and Woodford Shales of North America show how
changes in kerogen density and delta log R relate to source rock maturity and predict whether the formations will produce oil, gas,
or condensate.

Introduction
It is standard practice in North American shale play evaluation to use the delta log R technique published by Passey et al. (1990) to
quantify total organic carbon (TOC) from porosity and resistivity logs. That technique requires an important assumption about the
level of maturity of the source rock. In prospective shale plays, such as the emerging plays of Europe, Asia, and elsewhere,
accurate maps of maturity might be unavailable. Therefore, it has become desireable for resource play evaluation to invert
Passey’s delta log R equation and solve for the level of organic metamorphism, LOM.
Hood et al. (1975) define LOM as the level of organic metamorphism. They developed a single scale which synthesizes
several existing indices of organic maturity. The scale relates LOM to vitrinite reflectance among other indicators. Vitrinite
reflectance (%Ro) is used commonly in resource play evaluation to indicate whether the source rock is in the oil, gas, or
condensate-producing windows. Following the schematic often used by Humble Geochemical, the maturity of the source rocks is
assigned to a different production window based on the vitrinite reflectance. Vitrinite reflectance values less than 0.8% are
considered immature. Between 0.8 and 1.0% is the oil zone. The condensate / mixed zone is between 1.0 and 1.4%. Greater than
1.4% is the dry gas window. These windows are used as indicators of likely production. Mixed production is possible as well as
local variations in the relationship between vitrinite, maturity, and hydrocarbon production.
Based on Hood’s data, the transformation from LOM to %Ro is as follows.

*Currently with Murphy Oil, Houston, TX

2 SPE 133128

% Ro and LOM
y = -0.0039x 3 + 0.1494x 2 - 1.5688x + 5.5173
3.5
3
%Ro (Hood, 1975) 2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
LOM (Hood, 1975)

Fig. 1 Equation to convert LOM to %Ro

Passey et al. defined the delta log R as the scaled separation between resistivity and a porosity log, normally the sonic porosity
log. Sonic was chosen because it is least affected by the borehole and is widely available in both older log data and modern logs.
Passey’s approach was to use delta log R in a source rock with a known level of maturity to quantify TOC. In modern resource
play evaluation the TOC can be approximated or measured by other methods. Two of the most common ways of estimating TOC
are correlations to bulk density and uranium. One new method (Pemper et al. 2009) uses the carbon measured by a pulsed neutron
sonde to independently quantify TOC. The carbon belonging to carbonate minerals is removed by an expert system, leaving the
remainder available for coal, oil, or kerogen which is separable by their associated trace elements. This direct measurement of the
total organic carbon in the formation is preferred to bulk density or uranium because little local calibration of the tool’s carbon
measurement is needed. After the expert system’s quantification of calcite, dolomite, and siderite is verified and no other carbon-
bearing minerals are known to be present, the system is calibrated.
When the TOC is known, delta log R is obtained in the usual way. Then LOM is estimated as follows.

⎛ TOC ⎞
LOM = 13.6078 − 5.924 × log10 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (1)
⎝ Δ log R ⎠
This equation provides a continuous log of Ro. With minimal core calibration it shows how a source rock’s maturity changes
with depth as well as laterally across a basin. The method allows operators exploring source rocks to quickly and accurately assess
whether they will produce oil, gas, or condensate using porosity, resistivity, and elemental data from pulsed neutron logs.

Kerogen Density
Delta log R, despite widespread practice, was not intended for resource play evaluation. It was meant to evaluate source rocks
associated with conventional reservoir production. The optimal range over which it was calibrated was LOM values between 6
and 12. For LOM greater than 11, the equation underpredicts TOC and later corrections were added by other authors (Sondergeld
et al. 2010).
Delta log R is not easily determined with cores. Source rocks have very low permeability and cannot be saturated in the lab.
The resistivity of cores does not necessarily match what is measured in the borehole.
There is also the question as to why delta log R works. As source rocks mature they produce hydrocarbons which replace
conductive brine in the pore space. Passey writes that in mature source rocks the resistivity controls the separation, while in
immature source rocks (those closer to the surface) it is the sonic porosity. This assumption, however, does not take into account
changes in resistivity for very mature organic matter. The ultimate end of kerogen in the organic metamorphism process is
graphite (Okiongbo et al. 2005), an electrically conductive mineral. The presence of pyrite, chlorite, and other conductive
minerals can also change the delta log R interpretation.
One way of estimating the maturity of source rocks without using resistivity and sonic measurments is by measuring the
density of the kerogen. Ward (2010) shows in the Marcellus Shale that density of kerogen increases with increasing thermal
maturity as measured by vitrinite reflectance. Unfortunately, the density of kerogen as measured by core analysis requires a
process of dissolution with HCl, HF, and other solvents. There is always the possibility that pyrite remaining in the samples
elevates the density (Okiongbo et al. 2005). To support the Passey correlation method and estimate source rock maturity from core
SPE 133128 3

data, a method of calculating the density of kerogen from log data has been developed. This method requires an independent
measurement of TOC, such as from pulsed neutron measurements, gamma ray, or uranium log correlations. Second, an
independent measurement of porosity is required. This could be derived from a multi-mineral solution model (Spears et al. 2009),
or total porosity as measured by NMR logging tools (Jacobi et al. 2009).
The density of kerogen can be solved for in the mass-balance equation which accounts for all source rock components.
ρ b = φ ⋅ ρ fl + (1 − φ − Vk ) ⋅ ρ io + Vk ⋅ ρ k
ρ b (1 − Wk ) − φ ⋅ ρ fl
Vk = 1 − φ − (2)
ρ io
ρb
ρ k = Wk ×
Vk
The terms of this equation can be measured from core or log data. Table 1 provides a matrix for measuring these properties.

Table 1: Methods to Measure Kerogen Density

Core Log
Porosity, φ GRI Method NMR / Multi-Mineral
Bulk Density, ρb As-Received RHOB log
Kerogen, Vk , Wk Leco / Rock-Eval TOC log / Uranium / RHOB
Inorganic density, ρ io XRD Mineralogy log
Fluid density, ρ fl Dean-Stark Sw log

One of the most important terms when solving for kerogen density is fluid density, ρfl. From core data the fluid density is
determined from the Dean-Stark measured gas saturation. At surface conditions, the density of gas can be estimated to be 0.0 g/cc.
The density of water varies with salinity at the surface, but should normally be close to 1.0 g/cc. In dry gas wells the fluid density
is approximated as follows.
ρ fl = S w * 1.0
(2)
The inorganic grain density, ρio, is equivalent to the matrix density of the minerals, not including kerogen. This is exactly the
grain density one normally calculates from XRD data. It is not the grain density measured by the GRI Method of shale gas core
analysis. In that method the crushed sample is weighed after Dean-Stark extraction and would still include organic matter. It
should always yield a lower grain density than the one calculated from XRD, provided the TOC of the sample is a significant
fraction of the total weight.
In cases where the Dean-Stark saturation is not available or is uncertain, a modification to the above equations can be used.
For this version the GRI Method grain density, ρg, is used. The alternative method can also be used to validate the accuracy of the
Dean-Stark results. There is no known equivalent to the GRI Method grain density available from log data. Grain density derived
from multi-mineral solutions would presuppose a kerogen density, which is the goal of the analysis.

Wk
ρk = (3)
1 1 Wk
− +
ρg ρ io ρg

Following the work of Guidry et al. (1990) the weight fraction of kerogen, Wk, is calculated from the weight fraction of TOC.
For many shale gas formations, including those known to produce oil, the S1 values from core are very small. Thus the weight
fraction can be estimated by dividing the TOC by 0.87.
4 SPE 133128

Practical Aspects of Log-based Kerogen Density Calculation

The level of maturity is usually not expected to exhibit large variations within a particular organic shale section. To reduce
local variations within the various log responses, we suggest analyzing depth trends instead of level-by-level calculations for
kerogen density or LOM.
The TOC calculation method suggested by Jacobi et al. (2009) asserts kerogen density. The dependence of TOC on kerogen
density is shown in Fig. 2 for a deep Woodford Shale well. One can see that increasing TOC density increases the calculated TOC
value. The optimal TOC density is found by matching the mass balance-based TOC with that of independent core or log-based
measurements. In this particular case, the RMS misfit between the log-based and core pyrolisis TOC is minimized with a kerogen
density of 1.37 g/cc. If we replace the core TOC values with a TOC log from the geochemical tool, the kerogen density is
estimated to be 1.42 g/cc. Note that the sensitivity of the method increases with the amount of organic material. Thus, the
computed TOC density is largely controlled by the organic-rich zones, inherently stabilizing the method.

Fig. 2 Comparison between log-based mass-balance (Equation 2) and core LECO TOC.
Best RMS fit yields the optimum TOC density.

Another example from a Barnett well shallower than 1000 ft is shown in Fig. 3. The best fit between the LECO core and the
mass balance log TOC values is achieved at a kerogen density of 1.1 g/cc. If we use the TOC value from the geochemical log as an
independent TOC measurement, the TOC value becomes 1.14 g/cc. These numbers indicate a low level of maturity, which is not at
all surprising at such a shallow depth.
SPE 133128 5

Fig. 3 Comparison between log-based mass-balance (Equation 2) and core LECO TOC.
Best RMS fit yields the optimum TOC density.

S2 and Hydrogen Index From Logs

In his 1990 work, Passey published a correlation between S2 and delta log R and LOM. S2 is the milligrams of hydrocarbon per
grams of rock released during the second stage of pyrolysis. Lower S2 values indicate higher maturity, as the source has already
generated its hydrocarbons in-situ.
Hydrogen index is the ratio of mass of hydrocarbons to the mass of the TOC. It is related to organic metamorphism as higher
maturity organic matter has fewer hydrocarbons per gram of TOC. HI is obtained from S2/TOC*100. It is convenient to correlate
delta log R to hydrogen index and multiply it by TOC to obtain S2.
Passey presented two charts but no equations relating TOC and LOM to S2. There is one chart for oil-prone source rocks and
one for gas-prone. Fig. 4 displays information re-created from digitization of Passey’s work. The equations presented should be
considered an estimate of S2 from delta log R and LOM.

Fig. 4 Correlations of TOC and LOM to S2

6 SPE 133128

100
HI = S 2 ×
TOC
HI oil = 0.1028 × LOM 4 − 3.94 × LOM 3 + 50.4 × LOM 2 − 290 × LOM + 960 (4)
4 3 2
HI gas = 0.2914 × LOM − 11.64 × LOM + 169.57 × LOM − 1099 × LOM + 2863.2
Delta Log R-based LOM Results
Two wells from the Woodford Shale in North America were cored and logged with a pulsed neutron tool capable of measuring
TOC. Passey’s delta log R was also computed for these logs. One well is in the southern part of the Arkoma Basin where the
Woodford Shale is known to be in the dry gas window with the top near 11,400 ft. The other well is at a Baker Hughes tool-
testing facility in the northern part of the same basin. There, the Woodford Shale is in the oil window at roughly 2,500 ft.
The shape of the pulsed neutron-based TOC and computed delta log R curve are the same with regard to depth. The calibration
of delta log R to TOC requires an assumption of LOM. Instead, the LOM was calculated using the pulsed neutron TOC and delta
log R. For this deep Woodford Shale well the average LOM was between 10 and 12. The shallow Woodford Shale has LOM
values between 9 and 11. The calculated %Ro, LOM, and S2 values are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. Two vitrinite reflectance
measurements from cores were taken in the deep Woodford well and one point in the shallow well.

Fig. 5 Deep Woodford Example in the dry gas window. Track 1: Total Gamma Ray and Gamma Ray K-Th. Track 2: Resistivity and
Acoustic. Track 3: Bulk density, Neutron porosity, PE. Track 4: Uranium and Th/U. Track 5: Delta log R in green and TOC from pulsed
neutron in red. Track 5: Computed S2. Track 6: Computed Vitrinite Reflectance and colored maturity windows.
SPE 133128 7

Fig. 6 Shallow Woodford Well in the oil window. Note the slow acoustic transit time and lower resistivity.

Three wells from the Barnett Shale in North America were also cored and logged with the same tool suite. Previously, Zhao et
al. (2007) published a map of maturity in the Barnett Shale showing decreasing maturity to the southwest. Three examples wells
fall on a line roughly SSW from the core area of the Barnett to the same county where outcrops are found. The middle well is in
an area known to produce higher oil content than the core area.
Table 2 summarizes average calculated maturity values for three wells in the Barnett. Logs from the shallowest Barnett well is
shown in Fig. 7. There is a definite trend of decreasing maturity toward the SW, as expected. Measured vitrinite reflectance
values were not available for comparison with those calculated from logs. However, the production from each well matches the
hydrocarbon window associated with the calculated %Ro.
Table 2: Barnett Results
Location Tarrant Cty. Erath Cty. Lampasas Cty.
Production Dry gas Some oil, gas Immature / Oil window
Log derived %Ro 1.3 1.13 0.6
Log derived S2 3.1 4.9 22
Log derived TOC, wt % 4.3 5.1 8.4
Top of Barnett, ft 7433 3625 570
8 SPE 133128

Fig. 7 Barnett Shale Example from Tarrant County. The calculated %Ro falls very near the traditional 1.4 dry gas cutoff value.
Measured vitrinite reflectance values were not available for comparison.

Kerogen Density Results

The density of kerogen was computed from core data for the deep Woodford well. This well was the only example available that
had the requisite XRD, GRI method data, and TOC at enough overlapping points to draw a conclusion. On average, the kerogen
densities were near 1.35 g/cc. This value corresponds very well to the high maturity values reported by Ward (2010). The
correlation line he reports is drawn in Fig. 8 for reference. Measured vitrinite reflectance values are shown, as calculated values
from Tmax did not fit the trend. Two points also do not fit the trend, but their calculated values of kerogen density are either too
low or too high to be realistic. Small errors in some of the necessary measurements such as Dean-Stark, porosity, bulk density, or
inorganic grain density could be the reason for the error. It is also possible that the samples used for XRD, LECO, and GRI
measurements were not the same. Table 3 summarizes the TOC densities obtained from different methods.

Table 3: Comparison of TOC density results for the deep Woodford well
TOC
Density
Mass Balance TOC Independent TOC (gcc)
XRD, GRI LECO 1.35
Bulk Density, NMR porosity, Geochem Logs LECO 1.37
Bulk Density, NMR porosity, Geochem Logs Geochemical Log 1.42
SPE 133128 9

Fig. 8 Vitrinite reflectance measured from the deep Woodford Shale. Kerogen densities are calculated. Two points are obvious outliers
due to the unrealistically high and low values. The three remaining points fall on the trend line published by Ward (2010).

Conclusions
The level of maturity of source rocks can be determined from TOC and Passey’s delta log R. It can be expressed as %Ro using an
empirical equation. This %Ro can be mapped across a basin to determine whether source rocks fall into the oil, gas, or condensate
windows.

In addition, a method to calculate kerogen density using readily available log measurements is presented. The average kerogen
density for a source rock indicates level of maturity. For source rocks in the dry gas window (%Ro > 1.4), the kerogen density
should be at least 1.35 g/cc, or higher.

Acknowledgements
We would like to Baker Hughes for their permission and support to publish the work.

References

Guidry, F., Luffel, D., Olszewski, A., 1990. Devonian Shale Formation Evaluation Model Based on Logs, New Core Analysis
Methods, and Production Tests. Presented at the SPWLA 31st Annual Logging Symposium, June 24-27, 1990. Paper NN.

Jacobi, D., Breig, J., LeCompte, B., Kopal, M., Hursan, G., Mendez, F., Bliven, S., and Longo, J. 2009. Effective Geochemical
and Geomechanical Characterization of Shale Gas Reservoirs From the Wellbore Environment: Caney and the Woodford Shale.
Paper. SPE 124231 presented at the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 4-7
October, 2009.

Okiongbo, K., Aplin, A., Larter, S. 2005. Changes in Type II Kerogen Density as a Function of Maturity: Evidence from the
Kimmeridge Clay Formation. Energy and Fuels 2005, 19, 2495-2499.

Passey, Q., Creaney, S., Kulla, J., Moretti, F., and Stroud, J. 1990. A Practical Model for Organic Richness from Porosity and
Resistivity Logs. AAPG Bulletin 74(12):1777-1794.

Pemper, R., Han, X., Mendez, F., Jacobi, D., LeCompte, B., Bratovich, M., Feuerbacher, G., Bruner, M., and Bliven, S. 2009.
The Direct Measurement of Carbon in Wells Containing Oil and Natural Gas Using a Pulsed Neutron Mineralogy Tool. SPE
124234 presented at the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 4-7 October, 2009.
10 SPE 133128

Sondergeld, C., Newsham, K., Comisky, J., and Rice, M. 2010. Petrophysical Considerations in Evaluating and Producing Shale
Gas Resources. Paper. SPE 131768 presented at SPE Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 23-25
February 2010.

Spears, R., and Jackson, S. 2009. Development of a Predictive Tool for Estimating Well Performance in Horizontal Shale Gas
Wells in the Barnett Shale, North Texas, USA. Petrophysics 50(1):19-31.

Ward, J. 2010. Kerogen Density in the Marcellus Shale. SPE 131767 presented at SPE Unconventional Gas Conference,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 23-25 February 2010.

Zhao, H., Givens, N., Curtis, B. 2007. Thermal maturity of the Barnett Shale determined from well-log analysis. AAPG Bulletin
91(4):535-549.

Nomenclature
TOC =weight fraction total organic carbon
LOM =level of organic metamorphism
Δ_log_R =scaled separation between resistivity and porosity
ρb =bulk density, g/cc
=porosity, vol/vol
ρfl =fluid density, g/cc
ρio =grain density of inorganic minerals, g/cc
ρg =grain density, g/cc
ρk =density of kerogen, g/cc
Vk =volume of kerogen, vol/vol
Wk =weight fraction kerogen, wt/wt
S2 =milligrams hydrocarbon / grams of rock
HI =hydrogen index, grams TOC / grams of rock
%Ro =vitrinite reflectance