HIGHER STANDARDS

Multimineral Modeling
Wesley Ingram
Wesley.ingram@weatherfordlabs.com
Outline

1. Multimineral modeling using various datasets

2. Initial 2-phase model using core scanning data

3. Element to mineral and volumetric multimineral model

4. Calibrating models with lab data and core plug selection

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2

Multimineral modeling

Multimineral modeling solves for volumetric fractions and

defines bulk mineralogy, Rhoma, PHIT; often PHIE with CBW

Petrophysics solves for (Rhoma)a mineralogy using logs

Deterministic, probabilistic and hybrid methods are available

Deterministic solutions solve for 3-4 mineral phases, i.e. Vclay,

Rhoma, PHIT, PHIE, CBW; probabilistic can be more

With lab data or core scanning techniques, similar models can

be generated independently of logs

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2

Traditional log-based methods

Apparent Mineral Matrix

Several multimineral solvers

i.e., 3-phases, DEN-NEUT-PEF

Vertical axis = Rhoma (ρmaa)

Horizontal axis = Uma (Umaa)

Umaa = (Pe*ρb) – (φND*Ufl) / (1-φND)

ρmaa = ρb - (φND*ρfl) / (1-φND)

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2

Geochemistry multimineral modeling
weight volume
Defines matrix mineralogy from either
minerals (XRD) and/or elements (XRF/ICP)

Determination from a physical rock sample

Thus, no need to correct for porosity or fluids Proprietary

and can go directly at Rhoma
Image
The summation of mineral components
multiplied by respective density, organic
content is measured

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2

Non-destructive core analysis
X-ray fluorescence (XRF) core scanning – 1-inch scale
Dual Energy CT (DECT) core scanning – sub-mm scale

Essentially high-res logs: XRF up to 30 elements; DECT Pef and Rhob

Pre-slab Post-slab

XRF Scanner

CT Scanner
Outline

1. Multimineral modeling using various datasets

2. Initial 2-phase model using core scanning data

3. Element to mineral and volumetric multimineral model

4. Calibrating models with lab data and core plug selection

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2

DECT Model – Pre Slab

Mode Inputs Model Outputs

I. Spectral gamma I. Volume Clay
II. K, U and Th curves II. Volume Kerogen
III. DECT Rhob III. Volume Calcite
IV. DECT Pef IV. Volume Quartz
V. PHIT, CBW & PHIE
Calibrated Model
• XRD & Clay Type • Careful!! w/ porosity est.
• TOC & Pyrolysis • Clay typing for CBW & PHIE
• Rock Properties • Vdolomite w/ neutron log

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2

Example U-Ker validation
On right – organic-rich mudstone Uranium-Organic Matrix
10
Calculate U Index, cross-plot
against kerogen values y = -0.9707x2 + 5.3491x + 0.9645
R² = 0.6033

Organic Matrix
TOC = 0.83(S1+S2)/10 + S4/10 Proprietary
S4 = (10TOC – (S1+S2))/10 Image
Wk = 0.83(S2)/10 + S4/10

Convert Wk to Vk
Vk = (ρma)/(ρk) 1
0.1 1
Uranium Index
ρk = ~1.15 to 1.9 g/cc

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2

Solve for VCL before minerals
Solve for Vclay using the K & Th curve from spectral

GRcl = (P*Klog) + (T*Thlog) - i.e. U-stripped GR curve

VCL = ((GRcl(log) – GRcl(min))/(GRcl(max) – GRcl(min)))*(CL) - Linear

P = ~16; T = ~4 (~coefficients) CL = ~0.6 (Bhuyan and Passey, 1994)

With coefficients, calibrate to total clay, by formation or XRD

GR index is originally for shale, 0.6 is an estimation for clay

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2

Adjusting the K-Th coefficients

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2

Correct Pef for VCL and fluids
Solve for clay-corrected Pef curve, PEX

PEX = Pelog – (VCL*Peclay) Peclay ~assume illite / calibrate to XRD

1.8 2.0 3.5 6.3

KAOL MONT ILLITE CHLOR

**If full logging suite is available can correct for fluids using PHIND

PEX(ma) = (PEX) – (φND*Pefl) / (1-φND) PeSW~1.1, Pegas~0.1, Peoil~0.12

**Effect of fluids on Pef log is minimal – skip if PHIND is not available

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2

2-phase mineral solution from Pef
Remaining Pef response if from solid-phase minerals (Quartz-Calcite)

PEX(ma) = (Pequartz*Vquartz) + (Pecalcite*Vcalcite) - still 2 unknown volumes

PEX(ma) = (Pequartz*Vquartz) + Pecalcite*(1.00 – Vquartz) - rearrange for Vquartz

Vquartz = ((Pecalcite – PEX(ma)(log))/(Pecalcite – Pequartz))*(1.00 – VCL – Vker)

1.81 5.08
Quartz Calcite

Vquartz = ((5.08 – PEX(ma)(log))/(5.08 – 1.81)*(1.00 – VCL – Vker)

Quartz index Material balance

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2

CT Mineral Model

Model Outputs
I. Volume Clay
II. Volume Kerogen Proprietary
III. Volume Calcite Image
IV. Volume Quartz
V. PHIT, CBW & PHIE

Calibrated Model
• XRD & XRF
• TOC & Pyrolysis

Pre-slabbed Core!
© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2
Outline

1. Multimineral modeling using various datasets

2. Initial 2-phase model using core scanning data

3. Element to mineral and volumetric multimineral model

4. Calibrating models with lab data and core plug selection

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2

Multimineral Model – Post Slab

Mode Inputs Model Outputs

I. XRF Major Elements I. Volume 6 to 8 minerals
II. Traces included II. More for the ambitious
III. EM Model high res III. Volume Kerogen
IV. CT Rhob IV. PHIT, CBW & PHIE

Calibrated Model • Validate kerogen here as well

• XRD & Clay Type • Clay typing for CBW & PHIE
• TOC & Pyrolysis • Much more accurate Rhomma
• Rock Properties

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2

EM Model – high-res with XRF
Element to Mineral Modeling involves numerous approaches the
goals is to build representative model by formation

1. Straight stoichiometric approach can be used, i.e. XRF Ca is

converted to CaCO3, Si is converted to SiO2….. And so on
2. Probabilistic approach can be used with elements or oxides
to then generate minerals with the lowest residuals
3. Deterministic approach uses stoichiometric index curves,
matched to lab-quality XRD data – essentially calibrated
4. Most important – avoid over solutions or too many minerals!

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2

Best estimate for mix of minerals

Pore Volume
Solid-phase Rhomaa 1.00

Vorganics & Vhm

0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3
weight to volume
quite different
VCL Vqrtz Vca Vdol

0.05 0.05
Vhm
Organic Group
Matrix Heavy Min
FeS, CaPOF
© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2
# Standard Porosity Equation
Rhoma, Rhob and Rhof can be used to calculate PHIT

_______________________________________________________________________________

PHIT (ΦT) = (ρma – ρb) / (ρma – ρf) (v/v)

Iterative approach
From Log Log estimates rerun w/ sat. model
Or saturations
Poorly constrained
in mixed lithologies

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2

# Convert weight to volumes

Vi = Mi(1 – Wk) x (ρma/ρmi) (v/v) Vi = volume mineral (vol.%)

Vk = volume kerogen (vol.%)
Mi = mineral component (wt.%)
Vk = Wk x (ρma/ρk) (v/v) ρma = rock matrix density (g/cc)
ρmi = mineral density (g/cc)
ρk = kerogen density (g/cc)
______________________________________________________________

𝑛
𝑖 𝑉𝑖
ViN = Vi / + Vk (v/v) ViN = normalized mineral (vol.%)
VkN = normalized kerogen (vol.%)
ρma = cancels out here (g/cc)
𝑛
VkN = Vk / 𝑖 𝑉𝑖 + Vk (v/v)

Proprietary Equations: Ingram et al., 2015

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2
# Optional: CBW and PHIE est.
Bound fluids can be estimated given clay typing and volumes

_______________________________________________________________________________

Φclay = (ρclay-dry – ρclay-wet) / (ρclay-dry – ρf) Φclay = bound water affinity (ratio)
ρclay-dry = dry clay density (g/cc)
ρclay-wet = dry clay density (g/cc)
CBW = (Vclay1 x Φclay1) + (Vclay2 x Φclay2) + …. ρf = fluid density - brine 1.05 (g/cc)
Vclay1 = volume clay (v/v)
Φeff = effective porosity (v/v)
PHIE (Φeff) = ΦT – CBW (v/v) ΦT = total porosity (v/v)
CBW = clay bound water (v/v)

Sondergeld et al. 2012: SPE Paper

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2
# Rhoma geochemistry derived
Organic Matrix

Material balance sum to 1.00 Pore Volume

Solid-phase Rhoma
Multiple Volume by density
0.15 0.4 0.4

Organic Matrix = solid-phase VCL Vqrtz Vca

kerogen and/or bitumen

Organic Matrix (K)ma & HM 0.05

impart ΔRhoma if v/v is sufficient
ρsand = 2.65 G/CC ρlime = 2.71 G/CC

Once solid-phase Rhoma is

determined solve for PHIT

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2

# Rhoma from geochemistry

Sum of mineral components and kerogen defines solid matrix

________________________________________________________________________________

𝑛
𝑖 𝑉𝑖𝑁
ρma = x ρmi + VkN x ρk ρma = solid-phase matrix density (g/cc)
ρmi = mineral density (g/cc)
ViN = normalized mineral (vol.%)
VkN = normalized kerogen (vol.%)
ρk = kerogen density (g/cc)

Proprietary Equations: Ingram et al., 2015

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2
# Close volumes around PHIT

• All mineral components and kerogen are closed around PHIT

___________________________________________________________________________________

ViN = normalized mineral (vol.%)

• ViN(1 – ΦT) and VkN(1 – ΦT) VkN = normalized kerogen(vol.%)
CBW = clay bound water (v/v)
ΦT = total porosity (v/v)
• If CBW > ΦT Then CBW = ΦT

Proprietary Equations: Ingram et al., 2015

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2
Multimineral Model

Model Inputs
I. XRF Major Elements
II. DECT Rhob Proprietary
III. Optional - logs Image

Calibrated Model
• XRD & XRF
• TOC & Pyrolysis
• Rock Properties (SRP)

Post-slabbed Core!
© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2
Outline

1. Multimineral modeling using various datasets

2. Initial 2-phase model using core scanning data

3. Element to mineral and volumetric multimineral model

4. Calibrating models with lab data and core plug selection

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2

Core-Log Calibration Workflow
1. Start with lab TOC/Pyrolysis and XRD and/or XRF
2. Covert above to volumes using multimineral equations
3. Depth shift lab / core plug data as needed with SGR
4. Match above to log mineral model and kerogen curve
5. Adjust to match RHOMAA to RHOMAA from 1. (above)
6. Run log multimineral model and adjust to PHIT as needed
7. Optional – match clay minerals to CBW estimates
8. Select saturation model, plot core SW re-run MultiMin
9. Note – oil vs. water-wet zones much more involved SCAL

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2

 1 = Fair

Workflow to maximize value 2 = Better

3 = Best

Yes Yes
Visual description Core Acquisition
No Pre-slab non-destructive
No core analyses (DECT, SGR)
ASAP
Yes No
1 Pick Core Plugs
Sections / Plugs
CT Mineral Model
for Saturations

Slab Core Pick Core Plugs 2

Yes No
Yes
Fully Calibrate XRF Multimineral Model Additional Core Plugs 3
Petrophysical logs No

Re-calibrate Model TOC/Pyrolysis / XRD

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2
Why is selecting plugs important?
• It is critical calibrating petrophysical models, i.e. Vclay, PHIT
• Rock properties, plug location may bias reservoir assessment

Skewed R^2 << R^2 Representative

Statistical plugs Selected plugs

Y = mx + b Y = mx + b

Lab Data (y)

Lab Data (y)

Log Curve (x) Log Curve (x)

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2
Log Calibration Questions

• What is the value of non-destructive core analyses?

• How can they help with core evaluation workflows?

• How is rock geochemistry properly compared to logs?

• What techniques best calibrate petrophysical models?

• How can such data be applied to formation evaluation?

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 30

END PRESENTATION

1. Multimineral modeling using various datasets

2. Initial 2-phase model using core scanning data

3. Element to mineral and volumetric multimineral model

4. Calibrating models with lab data core plug selection

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2

Lab validation examples of Rhoma

3.0

2.9

2.8

2.7

Dry Grain Density

2.6

2.5

2.4

2.3

2.2

2.1

2.0
2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0
XRD Matrix Density

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2

 Lab validation examples of Rhoma

3 3

2.9 2.9

2.8 2.8

2.7 2.7

2.6 2.6
Dry Grain Density

Dry Grain Density

2.5 2.5

2.4 2.4

2.3 2.3

2.2 2.2

2.1 2.1

2 2
2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3

XRD Matrix Density XRD Matrix Density

© Weatherford Laboratories. All Rights Reserved. 2