Shale Rock and Fluid Properties

Shale Rock and Fluid Properties
Mohan Kelkar
Shale Properties - 0 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Reservoirs
Examples of “Unconventionals”
After Bohacs et al., IPTC 16676

Reservoirs
Unconventional oil vs. Gas
Gas molecules are smaller; hence can

flow in low permeability reservoirs
Gas viscosity is lower; hence less
resistance by gas molecules compared
to oil molecules

Reservoirs
Oil vs. Gas

Reservoirs
Background - Geology
Consolidated sedimentary rock

Deposited in low energy environments
(tidal flat, deep ocean)
Fine grain mud/Clay particles along with
organic debris (Algae/Plant/Animals)
Accumulation and compaction result in
layered rock with very low vertical
permeability
Shale Gas Primer, 2013
Reservoirs
Background - Geology
Notice both horizontal

and vertical fractures
in Marcellus Shale
outcrop
Shale Gas Primer, 2013

Reservoirs
Shale Stratification
Mohaghegh, SPE 165713

Reservoirs
Background - Grains
Majority less than 4 microns but may

contain up to 60 micron particles
Can contain different minerals – quartz,
feldspar, clays, metals, carbonates
Wide range of compositions
Significant areal and vertical variability
in compositions
Passey et al., SPE 131350
Reservoirs
Background - Variability

Reservoirs
Background - Variability

Reservoirs
What is different about shale compared to
conventional rock?
Shale is a source rock (not reservoir

rock)
Areally extensive compared to
conventional rock
Does not require trap (structural or
stratigraphic) for hydrocarbon
accumulation

Reservoirs
Shale Gas Accumulation
Generalized diagram showing categories of conventional and continuous oil and gas
accumulations. From Schenk and Pollastro (2001).
Reservoirs
Important Shale Properties
 TOC (Total Organic Carbon)

» Maturity of Hydrocarbons
» Organic Matter Type
 Mineralogy
 Thickness
 Porosity
 Permeability
 Saturation
 Adsorption
Reservoirs
TOC
The concentration of organic material in

source rocks as represented by the
weight percent of organic carbon
Minimum value of 0.5 % required to be
considered an effective source rock
www.slb.com/glossary
Reservoirs
What type of TOC?
Kerogen (pre-cursor to hydrocarbons)

(insoluble in organic solvents)
Bitumen (soluble in organic solvents)
Condensate
Oil
Gas
Char (ultimate residue; no hydrogen)
Reservoirs
Degree of Maturity

Reservoirs
Kerogen
Determined based on H/C and O/C

ratios
Type I and II: high H/C ratios; mostly
from algal and herbacious material; will
generate oil
Type III: low H/C ratios: woody/coaly
material; will generate gas

Reservoirs
Kerogen

Reservoirs
TOC Measurements
From Cores
» Leco Method: 1 gm of pulverized rock –
apply combustion and measure the CO2
» Pyrolysis Method: More expensive; can
determine liquid hydrocarbons; convertible
kerogen and inorganic CO2; can determine
the kerogen type as well as source rock
potential
Sondergeld et al., SPE 131768
Reservoirs
Pyrolysis

Reservoirs
Pyrolysis
After pyrolysis, the residual portion of the TOC, referred to as

residual carbon, (S4) is obtained from the oxidation of the
sample in another oven.
The sum of the Extractable Organic Material (EOM),
convertible, and residual carbons is used to obtain the TOC
value based on instrument calibration against a known rock
standard.
Gas/Oil Kerogen
EOM Carbon Convertible Carbon Residual Carbon
S1 S2 S4
Total Organic Carbon

Reservoirs
Pyrolysis
The following properties are computed from pyrolysis data

(Crain, 2000):
• HI (Hydrocarbon or Hydrogen index)

HI = 100 * S2 / TOC (mg/gram of TOC)
• OI (Oxygen Index)
OI = 100 * S3 / TOC (mg/gram of TOC)
• PI (Production Index)
PI = S1 / (S1 + S2) (dimensionless)

Reservoirs
TOC Measurements

Reservoirs
Density Log
Higher the TOC,

less is
The effective
density

Reservoirs
TOC Calculations using logs
After the alignment of

the shale base lines, the
sections where the
sonic and resistivity
curves separate from
each other are
considered as
potentially organic rich
intervals. (Passey et al.,
1990)

Reservoirs
Passey et al. (1990) Method
Calculate D log R at a given interval from one of the following

relationships:
 R  R, Rbaseline : Resistivities (ohm-m)
D log R  log    0.02  Dt  Dtbaseline  Dt, Dtbaseline: Sonic log readings (msec/ft)
 Rbaseline 
 R  , baseline : Densities (gm/cc)

D log R  log    2.5    baseline  (0.94 < kerogen <0.98 gm/cc)
 Rbaseline 
 R 
D log R  log    4   baseline  , baseline : Porosities (fraction)
 Rbaseline 
Subscript “baseline” indicates value in non-source rock
Reservoirs
Corrections for gas shales
Estimating the Correction Coefficient, Ccorr:

Graphical Calibration (Passey et al., 2010) of TOC estimates
The calibration
limit for Ro > 1
and LOM > 10.5
approximately
corresponds to the
correction
proposed by
Sondergeld et al.
(2010).

Reservoirs
(Sonic – Resistivity) log
Higher the TOC,

higher is
resistivity

Reservoirs
Wt vs. Volume % of TOC
Kerogen density: 1.1 to 1.4 g/cc

Grain density: 2.6 – 2.8 g/cc

Reservoirs
Problem 1
If wt % of TOC (comprised of kerogen) is

5 %, what is the vol % of TOC? Assume
density of rock is 2.4 g/cc, assume
kerogen density is 1.2 g/cc. Assume that
organic porosity within kerogen is 30 %
and assume that density of fluid within
organic porosity is 0.3 g/cc

Reservoirs
Solution: Problem 1
keff=1.2x0.7 + 0.3x0.3 = 0.93 g/cc

0.05
𝑊𝑂𝐶 = 0.93
0.05 0.95 = 0.12
+
0.93 2.4
The volume % is 12 % compared to

weight percent of 5 %.

Reservoirs
Vitrinite Reflectance
A measure of thermal maturity of

organic matter
Originally used to determine the rank of
coal
Results from digenetic alteration of
lignin and cellulose in plant cell walls;
results in shiny surface
% of Reflected Light from a sample
immersed in oil
Reservoirs
Vitrinite Reflectance/TOC
Example: Wolfcamp

Reservoirs
LOM
(Level of Organic Metamorphism)
Also measure of thermal maturity

Reservoirs
BACK TO QUIZ!

Reservoirs
Minerology
Primary Minerals: Quartz, Carbonate,

Clays
Method of Determination: XRD and
Cores (X –Ray Diffraction)
Brittleness Index=
% Quartz/(%Quartz+%carbonate+%clays)

Reservoirs
Minerology
Barnett Shale

Reservoirs
Sense of Scale in Nano-World
Length Scale
1 nm = 100 nm 1 nm = 10-9 m
1 mm = 103 nm 1 mm = 10-6 m
1 mm = 106 nm 1 mm = 10-3 m
1 m = 109 nm 1 m = 100 m
Permeability Scale
1 nD = 100 nD 1 nD = 10-9 D
1 mD = 103 nD 1 mD = 10-6 D
1 mD = 106 nD 1 mD = 10-3 D
1 D = 109 nD 1 D = 100 D
Reservoirs
Porosity
 Intergranular Porosity: Pore space between

grains
 Intragranular Porosity: Pore space within a
grain
 Inter-crystalline Porosity: within crystals
 Kerogen Porosity: Porosity within kerogen
(organic matter)
 Total Porosity: Total pore space
 Effective Porosity: Contributing to the flow
Reservoirs
What is effective porosity?

Reservoirs
Clay Bound Water (CBW)
 All siliclastic materials are water wet and

due to very small particles, they have very
large surface area

Reservoirs
Pore Sizes
 Very small pore sizes: vary between as small as 2 nm
(.000002 mm) to 150 nm (0.00015 mm) for majority of
pores
 Porosity measurement can be difficult due to long
equilibration time using conventional methods

Reservoirs
Differences in Pores

Reservoirs
Barnett Sample - Pores
Each image is 250 mm

X 250 mm
Pore size is 5 to 50 mm

Reservoirs
Kerogen Pore Space
(Scanning Electron Microscope Image)
Size of pores in nm
In some shales
Kerogen porosity
Can be as high
as 50 %

Reservoirs
Kerogen Pore Space
(Scanning Electron Microscope Image)
Size in 3d
Is 5 mm3
Gold Boundary
is enclosing kerogen

Reservoirs
Pores are not the same!
 Intergranular, intra-granular and

intercrystalline pores are bigger than that
observed in intra-kerogen (organic) pores
 In formations bearing oil, little evidence exists
of organic pores; if present, any oil adsorbed
on kerogen surface is not producible.
 In formations bearing gas, significant
evidence exists that organic pore contain
significant amount of gas

Reservoirs
Formation of Pores
(current understanding)

Reservoirs
Porosity Measurements
Issues
Removal of water (bound and free) as

well as hydrocarbons from the sample
Pore access to gas (helium, nitrogen)
Adsorption effects
Sample size, crushing methods
Overburden stress and pore pressure

Reservoirs
Porosity Measurements
Effective Porosity
» Boyles Law using Helium
– Need to dry the cores at 145 F till weight
reaches stable values (remove free water but
not bound water)
– Difficult because of equilibration time
– Effect of overburden can be considered

Reservoirs
GRI Method
(Luffel and Guidry, SPE 20571)
Clean the whole core and measure the

extracted hydrocarbons and water
Crush the sample to uniform size
Measure porosity and permeability of
the crushed sample
Rationale: the pores – although small –
are connected; time savings of
measurement are significant
Reservoirs
GRI Method
(Luffel and Guidry, SPE 20571)

Reservoirs
Comparison between
Core and Crushed Samples
Statistically, for shale

samples, the results are
the same

Reservoirs
Uncertainty due to CBW
Three Labs – different Results
Blue Lab heats the core at different temperatures

Spears et al., SPWLA, 2011
Reservoirs
Effective Porosity vs.
Total Porosity
𝑁𝑜𝑡𝑒: 𝜌𝐷𝑟𝑦𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑦 1 − 𝜑 𝑇𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑦 + 𝜌𝑓𝑙 𝜑 𝑇𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑦 = 𝜌𝑊𝑒𝑡𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑦

Reservoirs
Flow through Rocks

Reservoirs
Knudson Number

Reservoirs
Knudson Number
 Depending on the value of Kn, the dominant

flow mechanism can change
 Kn has to be less than 0.001 for Darcy flow to
dominate
 Higher the pressure, smaller the value of l,
smaller the value of Kn
 Lab tests at atmospheric conditions may
result in transition flow for typical shale pore
size while we apply Darcy’s law equation
Reservoirs
Effect of pore pressure and
pore size
Sinha et al., SPE 164263

Reservoirs
Observations
The most likely flow regimes in the

reservoir are Darcy flow, slip flow and
possible transition flow
The pore size has to be less than 100
nm and pressure has to be less than
1000 psia in a pore (highly unlikely) to
have free molecular diffusive flow

Reservoirs
Permeability Measurements
Steady State
Pulse Decay
Pressure Decay
Can be applied to both core samples or
crushed samples
Discrepancies exist in different
measurements
Reservoirs
Permeability Variations
1 nd = 10-6 md

Reservoirs
Steady State vs. Unsteady State
Round Robin Tests
 PD – Pulse Decay
 SS – Steady State
 MI – Mercury
Injection
 LB –
Latice/Boltzman
Bertoncello and Honarpour., SPE 166470

Reservoirs
Difficulties with crushed rock
samples
Impact of effective stress is not

accounted for
Lack of Klinkenberg correction
Impact of variability of particle sizes of
crushed samples

Reservoirs
Difficulties with core
samples
Time scale over which properties are

measured
Cracking due to dehydration
Effect of stress creep
The measurements can be quick using
supercritical fluids with low
compressibility if stress creep can be
managed
Reservoirs
Stress Creep

Reservoirs
Steady State Measurement
Rosen et al., SPE 168965

Reservoirs
Klinkenberg Effect
Slippage can be accounted for through

Klinkenberg effect
𝑏𝑘 4𝜆
𝑘 = 𝑘∞ 1 + = 𝑘∞ 1 +
𝑝𝑚 𝑟𝐻
A plot of k vs. pm can provide k∞

Reservoirs
Adsorption Problem

Reservoirs
Adsorption Problem

Reservoirs
Observations
 Slippage increases as pressure decreases

resulting in higher permeability
 Adsorption decreases as pressure decreases
resulting in higher permeabilities
 Lab results, using helium, at ambient
conditions can significantly overestimate the
permeability of cores
 Composition matters. Carbonate with higher
laminations increases matrix permeability.
Kerogen pores close easier with stress.
Reservoirs
Empirical Correction
Sakhaee-Pour and Bryant (SPE

146944) proposed (p is in Mpa)
𝑘𝑙𝑎𝑏
= 0.001𝑝2 + 0.0898𝑝 + 0.783
𝑘𝑖𝑛−𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑢
The correlation is not based on actual
data, but based on network model

Reservoirs
Permeability
Estimates in the lab show wide

variation; although steady state appears
to be more accurate and accepted
True measurements are difficult due to
the effect of slippage and adsorption
Stress creep requires that the cores be
stabilized before measurements can be
made
Reservoirs
BACK TO QUIZ!

Reservoirs
Saturation
Need to measure free water, capillary

bound water and clay bound water
Important to distinguish between CBW
and other water
Possible to do it during core (or crushed
core extraction) by temperature

Reservoirs
Effect of Temperature

Reservoirs
Lab Measurements
Dean Stark Method: extraction by

Toluene at 110 C. Does not remove
CBW
Retort Method: By progressively varying
temperature, both CBW and other water
can be distinguished and reported as
volume produced

Reservoirs
Potential Sources of Error
Saturation is reported as percentage of

pore volume; therefore, wrong
measurement of porosity can result in
wrong saturation values
It is difficult to distinguish between CBW
and other water in log analysis

Reservoirs
Adsorption
Gas can be stored in pore space or on

solids
On solids
» Either in the micropores on the surface
» Or attached to the pore walls as layers
The gas attached to the solids is called
adsorbed gas

Reservoirs
Langmuir Isotherm
Langmuir defined isotherm to describe

the relationship of adsorbed gas to
pressure
𝑝 1 1 1 𝑝𝐿
𝐺𝑠 = 𝐺𝑠𝐿 OR = +
𝑝 + 𝑝𝐿 𝐺𝑠 𝐺𝑠𝐿 𝐺𝑠𝐿 𝑝
Gs = adsorbed gas (SCF/ton)
GsL (SCF/ton) and PL (psia) = Langmuir
Constants
P = pressure
Reservoirs
Experimental
Santos and Akkutlu, SPE 162595

Reservoirs
Experimental
Known amount of gas is added in

reference cell
Valve 2 is opened and gas is
equilibrated with core sample
Amount of gas either trapped in pore
and adsorbed is measured
By subtracting the stored gas in pores,
adsorbed gas is calculated
Reservoirs
Experimental
Experimental Data for

Shale samples
Santos and Akkutlu, SPE 162595

Reservoirs
Example
Alexander et al, Oil Field Review (autumn 2011)

Reservoirs
Uncertainty in Adsorption
(Round Robin)
Das et al, (SPE 159558)

Reservoirs
TOC vs. Adsorption
(Round Robin)
Das et al, (SPE 159558)

Reservoirs
Multi-Component Systems
 The Langmuir parameters are for a single

component
 These parameters can be different for
different components indicating the
adsorption capacity of each component
 It is possible that each component can desorb
differently as a function of pressure
 This implies that gas composition can change
as a function of pressure

Reservoirs
Impact of Adsorption on
Gas In Place Calculations
What is important?
Adsorbed gas
Or free gas?
Alexander et al, Oil Field Review (autumn 2011)

Reservoirs
Old vs. New
Ambrose et al, SPE 131772

Reservoirs
GIIP Calculations
 Gf: Free Gas

 Ga: Adsorbed
gas
 Gso: Gas in
solution
 Gsw: Gas
dissolved in
water
 All values are
in SCF/ton
Reservoirs
Important Drawback
 M: Molecular
weight lbm/lbmole
 s: density of
adsorbed gas in
adsorbed state
(For pure
methane, ≈ 0.34
g/cc)

Reservoirs
Example Calculation

Reservoirs
Example Calculation
Old method

Reservoirs
Example Calculation
New method

Reservoirs
BACK TO QUIZ!

Reservoirs
Geo-mechanical Properties

Reservoirs
Important Properties
Young’s Modulus
Poisson Ratio
Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS)
Brittleness

Reservoirs
Young’s Modulus
Also called Elastic Modulus or Tensile

Modulus (E)
Ratio of Longitudinal stress
(Force/Area) to longitudinal strain:
s/(DL/L)
Can be measured in the lab by applying
stress to a cylindrical core and
measuring the increase in the length
Has units of pressure
Reservoirs
Measurement
Lin and Lai, SPE 166234

Reservoirs
Poisson Ratio
It is the ratio of latitudinal to longitudinal

strain (common notation is n)
It is a dimensionless quantity and for a
cylindrical core = (Dd/d)/(DL/L)
For carbonates, it is about 0.3 and for
sandstones, it is about 0.2; for shales,
typically exceeds 0.3

Reservoirs
Sonic Logs
After Torres-Verdin, UT
Reservoirs
Static Vs. Dynamic
Reservoirs
Typical Ranges
Compressional vs. Shear Velocities
Reservoirs
Typical Ranges – Sedimentary Rocks
Compressional vs. Shear Velocities
Reservoirs
Traditional Tool
Reservoirs
Dynamic vs. Static
(Dipole Sonic Log)
Mullen et al., SPE 108139

Reservoirs
Uniaxial Compressive Strength
It is the highest value of stress at which

core sample fails
Can be measured in the lab

Reservoirs
UCS Measurement
(Change in stress vs. strain profile)
Li et al., IPTC 16580

Reservoirs
Brittleness
 Conventional relationship between dynamic

and static Young’s modulus will hold
 High Young’s modulus (> 3.5x106 psi)
 Low Poisson Ratio
 Low amount of clay
 Immediate failure at peak stress
 Formation of fine particles at breakpoint
 More drill cuttings during drilling
 Lower rate of penetration Jin et al., SPE 170972
Reservoirs
Static vs. Dynamic
Britt and Schoeffler, SPE 125525

Reservoirs
Barnett Shale
Better Wells!
Rickman et al., SPE 115258
Reservoirs
Brittle vs. Ductile
See how brittle rock reaches UCS!
Jin et al., SPE 170972

Reservoirs
Brittleness Index
𝑊𝑄𝐹𝑀 +𝑊𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑒 +𝑊𝑑𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒

𝐵1 =
𝑊𝑇𝑜𝑡
» WQFM is the weight of quartz, feldspar and
brittle mica
𝐸𝑛 +𝜈𝑛 𝐸−𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝐵2 = where 𝐸𝑛 = and
2 𝐸𝑚𝑎𝑥 −𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝜈−𝜈𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝜈𝑛 =
𝜈𝑚𝑎𝑥 −𝜈𝑚𝑖𝑛

Reservoirs
Brittleness Index Comparison
B2 B1

Reservoirs
BACK TO QUIZ!

Reservoirs
Fluid Properties

Reservoirs
What type of shale reservoirs?
Dry gas (Barnett, Haynesville,

Marcellus, Fayetteville)
Condensate Gas (Eagleford, Woodford)
Black Oil (Bakken, Niobrara, Cline,
Wolfcamp)

Reservoirs
Fluid Characterization Challenges
PVT cell vs. pore-confinement data
Firincioglu et al, SPE 166459
PVT Cell Confined Environment
The interface is flat The interface is curved
At Equilibrium
pgas
pliquid pgas
pliquid
Gas phase appears at pgas - pliquid = pc + Psurface

bubble-point pressure
pShale = pliquid- 117
= pb pgas ≠ pliquid =?
pb Gas
gas Properties Evaluation of Shale
Reservoirs
Thermodynamics in confinement
Bubble Point Suppression
Firincioglu et al, SPE 166459
When the first gas
Udell, 1982
bubble appears in
the pore Bubble point
from PVT cell
pg = pb - pe
pl = pb - ( pc + pe ) μ μg = μl
We can compute
p2cs
pc = Excess
r pc Suppression, pe
But, pe? pl p g pb
Shale Properties - 118 P
Evaluation of Shale Gas
Reservoirs
Thermodynamics in confinement
Based on Equilibrium
Thermodynamics and
compositional data
pl = pb - pc + pe ( )
1.3
1.28 Bakken 14.68 bar
1.26
Formation Volume Factor,Bo,
1.24
1.22
Vres/Vsurf
1.2 Phase Diagram Shift

Formation
1.18 and Bubble Point
1.16 Volume
No Pb supression Suppression
1.14 (Pc=0) Factor
Pb supression
1.12
(Pc>0) at 10 nm Shift
1.1 Firincioglu et al, SPE 166459
0 20 40 60 80 100
Shale Properties - 119
Pressure, bar Evaluation of Shale Gas
Reservoirs
Impact on black-oil simulation
GAS PRODUCTION
Gas Volume (MMM SCF)
3.2
2.4
1.6
0.8
OIL PRODUCTION
Oil Volume (MM STB)
3
Confined Properties
2
Bulk Properties
1
1/2013 1/2014 1/2015 1/2016 1/2017 1/2018 1/2019 1/2020 1/2021
Date Firincioglu et al, SPE 166459

Reservoirs
No change in GOR (pwf < pb)
Bakken Field
Nojabaei et al., SPE 159258

Reservoirs
No change in GOR (pwf < pb)
Bakken Field
Nojabaei et al., SPE 159258

Reservoirs
Condensate Reservoirs
(synthetic Mixture)
Ma and Jamili, SPE 168986

Reservoirs
Interesting Aspects
Bubble point and Gas in solution can be

changed because of capillarity
The original sampling of the fluid is very
difficult unless collected at low BHP and
at very early stages of production
The GOR or OGR observed at the well
may not represent the initial GOR or
OGR
Reservoirs

Shale Rock and Fluid Properties

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shale Rock and Fluid Properties

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shale Rock and Fluid Properties

Shale Properties - 0 Evaluation of Shale Gas

After Bohacs et al., IPTC 16676

Gas molecules are smaller; hence can

Shale Properties - 2 Evaluation of Shale Gas

After Bohacs et al., IPTC 16676

Consolidated sedimentary rock

Notice both horizontal

Shale Gas Primer, 2013

Mohaghegh, SPE 165713

Majority less than 4 microns but may

Passey et al., SPE 131350

Passey et al., SPE 131350

Shale is a source rock (not reservoir

Shale Properties - 10 Evaluation of Shale Gas

 TOC (Total Organic Carbon)

The concentration of organic material in

Kerogen (pre-cursor to hydrocarbons)

After Bohacs et al., IPTC 16676

Determined based on H/C and O/C

Shale Properties - 16 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Passey et al., SPE 131350

Shale Properties - 19 Evaluation of Shale Gas

After pyrolysis, the residual portion of the TOC, referred to as

Shale Properties - 20 Evaluation of Shale Gas

The following properties are computed from pyrolysis data

• HI (Hydrocarbon or Hydrogen index)

Shale Properties - 21 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Sondergeld et al., SPE 131768

Higher the TOC,

Passey et al., SPE 131350

After the alignment of

Shale Properties - 24 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Calculate D log R at a given interval from one of the following

 R  , baseline : Densities (gm/cc)

Estimating the Correction Coefficient, Ccorr:

Shale Properties - 26 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Higher the TOC,

Passey et al., SPE 131350

Kerogen density: 1.1 to 1.4 g/cc

Passey et al., SPE 131350

If wt % of TOC (comprised of kerogen) is

Shale Properties - 29 Evaluation of Shale Gas

keff=1.2x0.7 + 0.3x0.3 = 0.93 g/cc

The volume % is 12 % compared to

Shale Properties - 30 Evaluation of Shale Gas

A measure of thermal maturity of

Shale Properties - 32 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Also measure of thermal maturity

Passey et al., SPE 131350

Shale Properties - 34 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Primary Minerals: Quartz, Carbonate,

Shale Properties - 35 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Passey et al., SPE 131350

 Intergranular Porosity: Pore space between

Shale Properties - 39 Evaluation of Shale Gas

 All siliclastic materials are water wet and

Shale Properties - 40 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Shale Properties - 41 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Shale Properties - 42 Evaluation of Shale Gas

Each image is 250 mm

Sondergeld et al., SPE 131771

Sondergeld et al., SPE 131771