Thomas F.
Moslow
Evaluating Tight Gas
Reservoirs
INTRODUCTION
Gas reservoirs with estimated in situ gas permeabilities of
0.1 md (millidarcy) or less are officially recognized by the
U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as "tight
gas reservoirs." This absolute value for classification as a
tight gas reservoir was critically important during the late
1970s and early 1980s to qualify for federally allowed
enhanced prices of tight gas. Since that time, however, and
for all practical purposes, a tight gas reservoir is generally
recognized as any low permeability formation in which
special well completion techniques are required to stimulate
production (Table 1). The most commonly used recovery
technique is hydraulic fracturing, without which many tight
gas reservoirs would not be economical (see the chapter on
"Stimulation" in Part 9). Thus, most low permeability gas
reservoirs are considered "unconventional."
Table 1. Problems and Approaches to Evaluating Tight Gas Reservoirs
Reservoir Formation Problem
Reservoir performance is controlled by
sedimentary fades, lithology and/or
geometry
Reservoir performance and formation
permeabilities are negatively impacted by
presence of detrital or authigenic clays
(very common)
Reservoir performance is dictated by
origin and distribution of natural
fractures
Fracture mineralization impacts
reservoir performance.
Porosity and permeability trends are
controlled by clay diagenesis or
secondary cements
Reservoir gas accumulations lack a
floored gas-water contact
Overpressured formation or reservoir
(occurs frequently due to common
distribution of tight gas with basin
center locations and excessive overburden)
Underpressured formation/ or reservoir
due to stripping (erosion) of overburden
321
Department of Geology
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Low permeability gas-bearing formations occur in almost
all gas-producing sedimentary basins worldwide. In North
America, the vast majority of tight gas reservoirs can be
grouped into two main geological categories: (1) Devonian
shales from eastern United States and Canada, and (2) low
permeability sandstones from throughout the United States
and from the Western Canada Sedimentary basin (Spencer
and Mast, 1986). It has been estimated that in the United
States alone, tight sandstone formations are likely to have
recoverable reserves ranging from 100 to 400 tcf, and
Devonian shales have recoverable reserves of up to 100 tcf
(Office of Technology Assessment, 1985; cited in Spencer and
Mast, 1986). The successful exploitation of tight gas resources
in the future will depend in large part on advancements
made in the proper geological evaluation of low permeability
reservoirs.
Approach
Determine sedimentary characteristics and
origin of facies through core description and
construct predictive models for lateral variability
and heterogeneity of reservoir units
Identify and map reservoir facies with the least
detrital clay content; avoid treatment of formation
by acidization or injection of any fluids; use
oil-based muds; enhance recovery through
artificial fracturing of the formation (Moslow and
Tillman, 1986)
Evaluate the relationship between fracture
occurrence and lithology (Pitman and
Sprunt, 1986)
Determine the nature, origin, and timing of
mineralization through petrographical and
stable isotope techniques (Pitman and Sprunt, 1986)
Determine the petrological and mineralogical
history of reservoir facies; identify and map
"diagenetic facies" relative to sedimentary
facies
Map structural, isothermal, and pressure gradient
contours that are likely coincident with
boundaries of the gas envelope (Rose et al., 1986)
Requires appropriate exploration strategies or
reservoir engineering approach to gas recovery
Requires appropriate exploration strategies or
reservoir engineering approach to gas recovery
322 PART 6—GE0L0G1CAL METHODS

AMOCO
Whiskey Buttes No. 16
Lincoln County, Wyoming
Moxa Arch, Green River Basin GR
0- 1012 MCF

</>CNL 4>FDC
E l Perforated Interval
• Cored Interval
M Gas Show

%
Facies
11,000'H 11,000'
Foreshore/Upper Shoreface
Delta Plain (Crevasse Splay &
Marsh) / Abandoned Channel

11,050' Distributary
Channel

11,100' Lower Shoreface to 11,100'

Inner Shelf

Figure 1. A cored sequence of tight gas reservoir facies and correlations to eletric log responses of the Frontier Formation, Green
River basin, Wyoming. Lithologies and sedimentary characteristics are summarized in this kind of description; facies and
environments of deposition are shown on the right. (From Moslow and Tillman, 1986.)

TOOLS A N D METHODS interpretation of cored facies from a tight gas reservoir is

The extremely low permeability of tight gas reservoirs
severely restricts the ability of gas to migrate appreciable
distances. Consequently, the most important geological
characteristic of this type of reservoir is the nature and
distribution of porosity and permeability (Table 1). The most
common reason for the minimal permeabilities is the
occlusion of interstitial pore throats by detrital or authigenic
clays or cement (see the chapter on "Rock-Water Interactions:
Formation Damage" in Part 5). Thus, a proper geological
evaluation of tight gas reservoirs requires a multidisciplinary
approach to assess the depositional and diagenetic controls on
reservoir quality and heterogeneity (also see other chapters in
Part 6).
Facies Determinations
Since most tight gas reservoirs in North America are of
detrital origin (shale, siltstone, and sandstone), primary
processes of deposition, inferred from the examination of
sedimentary characteristics in core, can have a strong impact
on preserved porosity and permeability trends. An example
of a sedimentological description and environmental
shown in Figure 1.
Core to Log Correlations
Documenting characteristic log signatures for reservoir
facies can provide a valuable tool for constructing regional
cross sections, determining facies relationships, and
extrapolating reservoir geometries in areas of minimal or
nonexistent core control (see the chapter on "Quick-Look
Lithology from Logs" in Part 4). Commonly, the gamma ray
log provides the most distinctive log signature for individual
facies (Figure 1). For low permeability gas reservoirs,
crossover of the compensated neutron-formation density logs
is the most reliable well log for indicating gas-saturated and
porous intervals and for determining which intervals in the
reservoir should be perforated a n d / o r stimulated by
hydraulic fracturing.
Stratigraphic Cross Sections
Lateral variability in facies relationships, and thus
reservoir continuity and heterogeneity, are best determined
from the construction of stratigraphic cross sections (see the

chapter on "Geological Cross Sections" in Part 6). An
example of a cross section through part of a tight gas reservoir
is shown in Figure 2. Fades interpretations are based on core
descriptions and extrapolation of log signatures for each
cored fades to adjacent uncored wells. Distributary channel
sandstones form the reservoirs, and bay, marsh, and crevasse
splay mudstones form the seal. The lack of production in the
two wells to the east is attributed to the pinching out of these
mudstone facies and substantiates its importance as a
stratigraphic seal. Note the laterally discontinuous nature of
individual reservoir sandstone beds as depicted in the cross
section.
Petrophysical Properties of Reservoir Facies
Average core analysis values for porosity, permeability,
oil, gas, and water saturation should be determined for each
facies recognized to identify those facies of greater and lesser
reservoir quality (Figure 3a). In gas-bearing sandstones, very
low values of porosity and permeability are acceptable and
expected. While the average air permeability values rarely
exceed 1.0 md (millidarcy) for tight gas reservoirs, a
significant difference in permeability values often occurs
between facies (Figure 3b).
Anomalously high values from core analysis
measurements may also identify zones of fracture porosity
and permeability in tight gas reservoirs (see the chapter on
"Evaluating Fractured Reservoirs" in Part 6). However, one
Evaluating Tight Gas Reservoirs 323
must be careful in interpreting such results because
erroneously high measurements can also be produced by
bypassing or artificial fracturing of core samples during
analysis. Checks should be made to ensure that a sufficient
number of samples have been analysed for each facies or unit
and that permeability and porosity values correspond to
observed lithologies in core.
Petrological and Mineralogical Assessment
A petrological thin section, SEM, and X-ray diffraction
analysis of core samples from each sedimentary facies is
highly recommended in any geological evaluation of tight gas
reservoirs (see the chapters on "Thin Section Analysis" and
"SEM, XRD, CL, and XF Methods" in Part 5). Analyses of
several tight gas sandstones have attributed the low average
permeabilities, and thus poor reservoir quality, to the
presence of authigenic or detrital clays or cements (Masters,
1984; Spencer and Mast, 1986). Since the occurrence of these
constituents can be quite variable within a depositional
system and can be facies dependent, a broad range of
porosities, permeabilities, and gas saturation values often
exists in any reservoir (Figure 4). Identifying and mapping
those units of greatest reservoir potential are key to a
successful evaluation.
The common association of clays with tight gas reservoirs
makes them very sensitive to formation damage. Hydraulic
fracturing is therefore the least destructive and most preferred
well stimulation technique.
PART 6—GEOLOGICAL METHODS
aE »
sV ^s.1'
• \ ^if
fac
0)
CD ..
0) i_
c c u
c c .c
CO CO C/J
£ £
O O c
^ TJ CO

one
ore
ca
3
<A o T> c<J>
V c
s b^ <co o
u.
CO
LL
11
srvirrnyv,' •'•..'mtcmmvtmmmni<«, rmwn? m
i I£lIiIl!UIJIIl» WS «""!"li «MfflMlllliiiEB!!ia £<D
M I I P i l J i f ! iii 11

rva
i
C
0
©
c
co

rfor
red
! <i)
Q. O
o
CI
5X 2° fl
II-
z ^ —.
| S
-J
O
0 OaB n. 7
ol I
 Evaluating Tight Gas Reservoirs 325

NEARIHORE MARINE FACIEI DELTA NEARIHORE MARINE FACIEI DELTA

CHANNEL FACIEI (DtlUFronl) | PLAIN , FACIEI | (P«ltl Front) | PLAIN

11*
kcmt
CHANML
V.9
/ 14 —
/A •HOMFACt
8.6
4>%" Kmd

fM
1 1
72:

IOWU
SMOMFACI
•HCir
TRANMTKM
u— LOWER
•HORIFACE
.93

I •I
•HELF
THAMtlTlON

0.6'
S/y AIANOOWO <><
/
VJ/ CHANNEL Y/
.33'
(a)
I
yy' 03? yy MKNKFACI
WOLF
\Z\ V4 M ran
(b)

Figure 3. Histograms showing (a) average porosity values and (b) average permeability values for cored tight gas reservoir fades.
(From Moslow and Tillman, 1989.)

% TOTAL IN % OF PETROGRAPHIC
FACIES PERFORATED RESERVOIR
SUBSURFACE INTERVAL QUALITY
VERY
CHANNEL FACIES LOW I LOW | MOD. | HIGH
• PARTIALLY ABANDONED 1 12
• ACTIVE CHANNEL 65 80
• Fine Grained Sandstone (30)
• Coarse Grained Sandstone (37)
• Conglomeratic Sandstone (13)
SHALLOW MARINE 24 8
(SHELF-SHOREFACE-FORESHORE)
DELTA PLAIN 10
(BAY-SPLAY-MARSH)

Figure 4. Correlation of sedimentary facies and lithologies to petrographic reservoir quality. Distribution of reservoir facies in the
subsurface Is compiled from observations of cores, well logs, and cross sections. (From Moslow and Tillman, 1986.)