Rock classification in the Eagle AUTHORS

Ford Formation through Shahin Amin ~ Enhanced Oil Recovery

Business Unit, Occidental Petroleum

integration of petrophysical, Corporation, Houston, Texas;

shahin_amin@oxy.com

geological, geochemical, and Shahin Amin is a staff petrophysicist at

Occidental Petroleum Corporation in Houston,
Texas. He received his B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees
geomechanical characterization in petroleum engineering from Texas A&M
University. While at Texas A&M University,
Shahin Amin, Matthew Wehner, Zoya Heidari, he was a research associate at Multi-Scale
and Michael M. Tice Formation Evaluation of Unconventional and
Carbonate Reservoirs. His research interests
include petrophysics, formation evaluation,
and rock classification in unconventional
ABSTRACT reservoirs.

Integration of geomechanical, geological, geochemical, and pet- Matthew Wehner ~ Veratek Design,
rophysical characterization is critical to enhance production from Escondido, California; nwgeologist@
organic-rich mudrocks. This paper introduces an integrated rock gmail.com
classification method in the Eagle Ford Formation shales and Matthew Wehner is currently a research and
marls in southern Texas, consisting of organic-rich fossiliferous development acoustics engineer at Veratek
marine shale deposited during the Late Cretaceous. A joint in- Design. He previously worked for University
Lands as a geoscience associate and earlier as
version of triple-combo, spectral gamma-ray, and elemental
a geologist and data analyst at W.D. Von
capture spectroscopy logs was initially conducted to estimate Gonten Laboratories. He holds both a B.S.
volumetric concentrations of minerals, porosity, and fluid satu- degree and Ph.D. in geology from Texas A&M
ration. Effective elastic properties such as Young’s modulus and University. While at Texas A&M University,
Poisson’s ratio as well as minimum horizontal stress were then Matthew was a ConocoPhillips Research
estimated as a function of depth. Rock classification was finally Fellow in 2009 and 2010. His research interests
performed based on geologic texture and geochemical pro- include unconventional reservoirs, x-ray
perties, as well as well-log–based estimates of petrophysical and fluorescence, geochemistry, compositional
data analysis, sequence stratigraphy,
geomechanical properties.
quantitative stratigraphy and its application in
The introduced method was applied to two wells located in basin analysis, and unconventional reservoir
the oil window of the Eagle Ford Formation (average gas–oil characterization.
ratio of less than 2000 SCF/STB). The results of the integrated
rock classification demonstrated similar organic richness and Zoya Heidari ~ Hildebrand Department of
petrophysical properties in both wells. However, the geo- Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering, The
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas;
mechanical rock classification as derived from in situ stress
zoya@utexas.edu
profiles suggests higher proportions of the rock class with better
Zoya Heidari is an associate professor in the
completion quality (55% of net thickness in one well vs. 34% in
Hildebrand Department of Petroleum and
the other well). A 90-day report on the cumulative oil pro-
Geosystems Engineering at The University of
duction of this well shows an additional 11,000 bbl (i.e., 20% Texas at Austin. Before joining The University of
Texas at Austin, she was an assistant professor
at Texas A&M University in College Station
Copyright ©2021. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved. from September 2011 to August 2015. Zoya
Manuscript received December 22, 2016; provisional acceptance January 9, 2018; revised manuscript was the founder and director of the Texas A&M
received May 25, 2018; revised manuscript provisional acceptance December 10, 2018; 2nd revised Joint Industry Research Program on Multi-
manuscript received May 1, 2019; 2nd revised manuscript provisional acceptance June 19, 2019; 3rd
revised manuscript received November 27, 2019; 3rd revised manuscript provisional acceptance
Scale Formation Evaluation of Unconventional
December 11, 2019; 4th revised manuscript received February 23, 2020; final acceptance July 28, 2020. and Carbonate Reservoirs from 2012 to 2015.
DOI:10.1306/12222016520

AAPG Bulletin, v. 105, no. 7 (July 2021), pp. 1357—1381 1357

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
on 10 February 2023
 She has been the founder and director of The
University of Texas at Austin Industrial Affiliates
Research Program on Multi-Scale Rock Physics
since 2016. She holds a Ph.D. (2011) in
petroleum engineering from The University of
Texas at Austin. Zoya is one of the recipients of
the 2020 Society of Petrophysicists and Well
Log Analysts Young Professional Technical
Award, the 2019 European Association of
Geoscientists and Engineers Arie van Weelden
Award, the 2019 American Institute of Mining,
Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers
Rossiter W. Raymond Memorial Award, the
2019 Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)
Distinguished Membership Award, the 2019
departmental teaching award from the
Hildebrand Department of Petroleum and
Geosystems Engineering, the 2017 SPE Cedric
K. Ferguson Medal, the 2016 SPE Regional
Formation Evaluation Award, and the 2015 SPE
Innovative Teaching Award. Her research
interests include petrophysics, borehole
geophysics, rock physics, inverse problems,
completion petrophysics, and reservoir
characterization of unconventional and
carbonate reservoirs.
Michael M. Tice ~ Department of
Geology and Geophysics, Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas; mtice@
geos.tamu.edu
Michael M. Tice is an associate research
scientist in the Department of Geology and
Geophysics at Texas A&M University. He
earned his Ph.D. in geology from Stanford
University in 2006 and worked as a
postdoctoral researcher at the California
Institute of Technology from 2005 to 2007.
Michael’s research interests focus on
sedimentary geology and geochemistry,
geobiology, and water–rock interactions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work reported in this paper was funded by
the Joint Industry Research Program on Multi-
Scale Formation Evaluation of Unconventional
and Carbonate Reservoirs. We thank the man-
agement and technicians at the W.D. Von Gonten
Laboratories for their support and for making
their facility available for the experimental work
reported in this paper. Special gratitude goes
to Andrew Russell for his technical support
related to x-ray diffraction measurements.
1358 Integrated Completion-Oriented Rock Classification in the Eagle Ford Formation
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
on 10 February 2023
more oil production) compared to the second well. This ob-
servation was accounted for by geomechanical properties and
the distribution of rock classes that differentiate reservoir quality
and production.
INTRODUCTION
Reliable rock classification in organic-rich mudrocks should con-
sider petrophysical, compositional, and geomechanical properties.
Not only does the total thickness of the good-quality unconven-
tional reservoir need to be considered but so does the spatial
distribution of the good-quality reservoir (impacting efficiency of
hydraulic fracking, as well as hydrocarbon and water production).
Properties such as storage capacity, fluid saturation, and mineralogy,
along with quantity and type of organic matter (i.e., kerogen type),
are important factors in formation evaluation of organic-rich
mudrocks. Furthermore, inclusion of elastic properties in rock
classification is essential for the assessment of hydraulic fracturing
performance. However, because of the complexity in matrix
composition and pore structure of organic-rich mudrocks, as-
sessment of these parameters is challenging and requires proper
integration of core and well-log data.
Ideally, a rock classification would include both inorganic and
organic geochemical data. Inorganic geochemical data (i.e., x-ray
fluorescence [XRF] or elemental capture spectroscopy [ECS]
logs) are useful because they are quantitative and can be cor-
related with mineralogy (as validated with x-ray diffraction
[XRD]). Rock-Eval and LECO total organic carbon (TOC) can
be used to quantify and characterize the organic components in
mudrocks. Analysis of trace element concentrations (typically by
XRF) in the rocks provides insights into paleoproductivity and
paleoredox conditions at the time of deposition of mudrocks
(Wright et al., 2010). Redox-sensitive trace metals, which are less
soluble under reducing conditions, are enriched in oxygen-
depleted sedimentary facies. However, some trace elements re-
quire both reducing conditions and organic matter to accumulate
appreciably in shales. Thus, elements such as molybdenum (Mo),
vanadium (V), and uranium (U) provide information about the
redox state in the water column during deposition, as well as the
quality (and availability) of organic matter (Lewan, 1984; Brumsack,
2006; Tribovillard et al., 2006).
Geoscientists have introduced different techniques to classify
sedimentary rocks based on similarities in particular properties.
Among previous rock classification studies, Archie (1952) classified
carbonates based on their pore structure. Archie’s porosity-
based classification was among the earliest to differentiate lime-
stones based on petrophysical properties for the selection of
 reservoir-quality rocks (Archie, 1952). The increase
in availability and use of thin-section images, par-
ticularly for interpretation of depositional environ-
ments, shaped the texture-based rock classification
schemes such as that of Folk (1962) and Dunham
(1962). Folk (1962) introduced a detailed texture-
based classification that incorporated grain size,
roundness, sorting, and packing as well as grain
composition using microscopic images. In a similar
approach, Dunham (1962) classified carbonate rocks
based on the ratio of grain to matrix, into two main
groups: grain supported and mud supported. Cur-
rently, both the original and modified versions of the
carbonate classification of Dunham (1962) are used
for classifying carbonates and interpreting depositional
environments.
Various methods and algorithms have been pro-
posed to characterize and classify organic-rich mud-
rocks. Kale et al. (2010) studied 800 core plugs from
four wells to identify and group similar facies using
a quantitative core-based classification. Statistical
methods such as principal component analysis and
clustering algorithms were used to group similar rocks
based on porosity, mineralogy, TOC, and capillary
pressure measurements. Although, quantitative core-
based classifications are useful, the data acquisition
requires a substantial amount of laboratory time and
cost. In addition, core samples are not available from
most wells. Therefore, well-log–based classifica-
tions are favored by the industry, providing complete
vertical coverage and availability in many wells at
lower costs. In an example of a well-log–based study,
Popielski et al. (2012) conducted a classifica-
tion using k-means clustering and factor analysis
(i.e., used in reduction of the dimension of input
data), to group rocks with similar well-log re-
sponses, and well-log–derived estimates. Furthermore,
Petriello et al. (2013) introduced a well-log–based
multivariate classification scheme that employed a
heterogeneous rock analysis algorithm. Similar rock
patterns were identified and grouped along the zone
of interest. Petrophysical and geochemical measure-
ments were conducted on more than 200 core sam-
ples, for which gas-filled porosity, pressure decay
permeability, and TOC were the discriminant fac-
tors between rock classes in the Haynesville Shale.
Following an increasing interest in production
from organic-rich mudrocks in the recent years, nu-
merous studies have been published on the lithofacies
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
on 10 February 2023
classification across the United States shale plays such
as Marcellus Shale and Bakken Formation (Wang and
Carr, 2013; Bhattacharya et al., 2016). The choice of
classification method can impact the assessment of
these challenging reservoirs.
Production of hydrocarbons from organic-rich
mudrocks is not simply dependent on petrophysical
properties. To maximize wellbore–reservoir contact
and create high-permeability pathways for hydro-
carbon flow, practices such as horizontal drilling and
hydraulic fracturing are widely used. Hence, geo-
mechanical evaluation in organic-rich mudrocks is
required to model fracture geometry as part of the
planning of well completions for improving their ef-
fectiveness. Fracture propagation and geometry are
influenced by variables such as the frequency and
orientation of interfaces, which include natural frac-
tures, lamination, and bedding (Suarez-Rivera et al.,
2006, 2013). To account for elastic properties in a
well-log–based rock classification, Saneifar et al. (2014)
included a brittleness index as an additional factor of
rock quality, along with organic richness, kerogen
porosity, and quartz and illite volumes. This inte-
grated study used a predetermined number of geo-
logical facies in the Haynesville Shale as an input to
the classification. The results of the classification were
then crossvalidated with the thin-section petrography
images for each class. Aderibigbe et al. (2016) in-
corporated stress profiles in a production-oriented
rock classification applied to the Wolfcamp Forma-
tion. The completion intervals were selected based on
the final results of the integrated rock classification.
Previous publications have demonstrated the signifi-
cant impact of reliable rock classification on enhance-
ment of formation evaluation and subsequently an
improved selection of completion intervals (Suarez-
Rivera et al., 2011; Petriello et al., 2013; Aderibigbe
et al., 2016). However, the proposed workflow
included geomechanical properties as input for
classification.
In this paper, a core-based geochemical and
geological facies classification in the lower Eagle
Ford (LEF), one of two subsurface divisions in Eagle
Ford Formation (Donovan et al., 2016), was initially
conducted to determine the number of petrophysical
rock types. Then, by calibrating with the avail-
able core data, petrophysical, compositional, and
geomechanical properties of the rocks were de-
rived, solely using well logs in the model well. The
AMIN ET AL. 1359
 well-log–based properties were used to conduct a
petrophysical and geomechanical rock classification.
The use of well logs to estimate in situ stress profiles
as an input to the geomechanical rock classification is
the uniqueness of this study and is an improvement
over previous approaches, which commonly compared
geomechanical properties in a qualitative manner. The
introduced rock classification method is practical in the
field and is applicable to wells for which core data are
not available. In this paper, a second well was used
to conduct both petrophysical and geomechanical rock
classification, and the results were compared with the
first well, including production performance.
METHOD
This section covers a list of procedures and data types
used in this study. Initially, the laboratory measure-
ments are described, which are the data generated for
this study. Then described are the following proce-
dures: well-log–based petrophysical evaluation, depth-
by-depth assessment of geomechanical properties, and
Figure 1. A workflow illustrating the methods applied for the geologic, geochemical, petrophysical, and geomechanical classification
schemes included in this study. 2-D = two-dimensional; XRF = x-ray fluorescence.
1360 Integrated Completion-Oriented Rock Classification in the Eagle Ford Formation
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
on 10 February 2023
definition of the classification methods based on geo-
logical (lithology), geochemical, petrophysical, and
geomechanical properties. To identify the reservoir-
quality rock classes, the results of the petrophysical,
geological, and geochemical rock classifications are
integrated. The classification outcome of this inte-
gration is used for recommending target intervals for
lateral well placement and improvement of hydraulic
fracture design. Finally, both well-log–based rock
classification methods are applied to a new test well
to recommend the best candidate zones for com-
pletions and investigate possible factors affecting well
performance. Figure 1 illustrates the aforementioned
workflow.
Laboratory Measurements
Five types of laboratory measurements were acquired in
the first well (well 1). Two types of XRF measurements
were used in this study. The first is generally referred to
as handheld or portable energy-dispersive XRF (ED-
XRF) because the device itself is mobile and can detect
elements between Mg and U on the periodic table. The
 ED-XRF measurements were performed at 353 sam-
pling points. The ED-XRF data were used to charac-
terize the log-scale elemental composition. The second
type of XRF is called micro-XRF. For this type of XRF,
a tabletop Horiba XGT7000 micro-XRF analyzer, with
a spatial resolution of 10 mm per pixel, was used to
make elemental maps (~0.5 mm2). For organic geo-
chemistry, 175 LECO TOC measurements were made
by GeoMark and 28 of those samples were processed
for Rock-Eval. Also, 10 XRD measurements were
made on core from well 1 (courtesy of W.D. Von
Gonten Laboratories). From the core well 2, three types
of lab data were available: TOC, XRD, and slabbed
core photography. This study also made use of the
preexisting data from a set of 24 thin sections made
for other studies on the core from well 1.
Well-Log–Based Petrophysical Evaluation
The LEF boundaries are determined based on gamma
ray and U concentration from spectral gamma-ray
logs. A significant increase in total gamma ray and U
content defines the boundary, when crossing from
the LEF to the upper Eagle Ford (UEF). The UEF
is the upper division of the Eagle Ford Formation
(Donovan et al., 2016). Furthermore, a unique pyrite-
rich marker bed is present at the transition to LEF
from the UEF (Lock et al., 2010). At the base of the
LEF, the boundary with the Buda Limestone is well
established because of the changes in basic well-log
responses such as gamma ray, neutron porosity, and
density logs (i.e., Donovan and Staerker, 2010; Donovan
et al., 2012). The TOC is estimated using a correla-
tion between TOC (wt. %) from core measurements
and bulk density from well logs. Density-based esti-
mates of TOC have been widely used in the industry
through either predefined correlations derived for
certain formations or core-based–derived correla-
tions (Schmoker, 1979). Assuming a constant kero-
gen density of 1.2 g/cm3, volumetric concentration of
kerogen is then estimated as a function of depth.
The estimated volume of kerogen is an input to the
inversion-based multimineral analysis workflow.
Triple-combo and ECS logs are jointly interpreted
to estimate mineral concentrations and petrophysical
properties, such as porosity and fluid saturations, as a
function of depth. In this process, the determination
of mineralogy is based on XRD measurements, with
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
on 10 February 2023
an average of one sample per 5 m, in the LEF interval.
Correlations of element to mineral and mineral to
mineral are acquired as additional constraints in the
multimineral analysis to decrease nonuniqueness of
the inversion results and to improve the reliability of
the estimated properties. Finally, the well-log–based
estimates of mineral concentrations are compared
against core XRD measurements to validate the re-
liability of the multimineral model. Water saturation
(Sw) in the LEF is estimated using the modified Si-
mandoux model (Bardon and Pied, 1969). The con-
stant parameters in the model are obtained through
calibration against core measurements. The same con-
stant parameters are used for Sw assessment in wells in
which core data are not available.
Assessment of Geomechanical Properties
In the absence of acoustic logs, a self-consistent ap-
proximation (SCA) model is used to calculate depth-
by-depth elastic properties such as bulk and shear
moduli (Berryman, 1995). The inputs to the SCA
equations are (1) log-derived volumetric concentration
of each constituent, (2) elastic moduli specific to each
component, and (3) the geometric shape factor asso-
ciated with that component. Assumptions behind the
SCA theorem are that the constituents of the mix-
ture are immiscible and in an isotropic elastic media
(Berryman, 1995). The possible ranges for elastic moduli
of the mineral constituents were obtained from
previously published literature (Prasad et al., 2002;
Vanorio et al., 2003; Mavko et al., 2009; Sone and
Zoback, 2013).
The SCA equations (Berryman, 1995), which are
simultaneously solved for composite bulk and shear
moduli, are described by
N
�x
i Ki - KpSC P pi = 0 (1)
i=1
and
N
�x
i mi - mpSC Qpi = 0 (2)
i=1
where xi is the volumetric concentration of compo-
nent i; N is the total number of constituents; K*SC
and m*SC are the bulk and shear moduli of the
host rock; Ki and mi are the bulk and shear moduli
of the component i; and P*i and Q*i are factors
AMIN ET AL. 1361
 1362

on 10 February 2023
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
Integrated Completion-Oriented Rock Classification in the Eagle Ford Formation
Figure 2. The location of the two wells evaluated in this paper. They are located approximately 32 km apart in the Maverick Basin at the Eagle Ford Shale play, north of Edwards shelf
margin (modified from Energy Information Administration [eia], 2014). The GOR is reported in SCF/STB.
on 10 February 2023
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
Figure 3. Lower Eagle Ford (LEF) field example: conventional well logs; estimates of petrophysical, compositional and elastic properties; and the results of geochemical, geological,
and petrophysical classifications. Tracks from left to right include track 1: depth; track 2: high-resolution gamma ray (HGR), caliper (HCAL); track 3: array induction resistivity logs

AMIN ET AL.
(AT10–AT90); track 4: neutron porosity (NPHI) (in water-filled limestone units) and bulk density (RHOB); track 5: estimates of volumetric concentrations of minerals; track 6: estimates
of total porosity (POR); track 7: estimates of water saturation (Sw); track 8: well-log–based estimates of total organic carbon (TOC) (derived from bulk density log) compared to core
measurements; track 9: estimates of Young’s modulus (YM); track 10: estimates of Poisson’s ratio (PR); track 11: outcome of the geochemical rock classification (RC); track 12: outcome
of the geological RC; track 13: outcome of the well-log–based petrophysical RC; track 14: estimates of minimum horizontal stress gradient (MHS-grad); and track 15: outcome of the RC
based on stress profiles (SPRC). GAPI = API gamma-ray unit; UEF = upper Eagle Ford.

1363
 1364

on 10 February 2023
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
Integrated Completion-Oriented Rock Classification in the Eagle Ford Formation
Figure 4. Well 2, lower Eagle Ford (LEF) field example: conventional well logs; estimates of petrophysical, compositional, and elastic properties; and the results of the petrophysical
classification. Tracks from left to right include track 1: depth; track 2: stratigraphic zones; track 3: high-resolution gamma ray (HGR); track 4: array induction resistivity logs (AT10–AT90);
track 5: neutron porosity (NPHI) (in water-filled limestone units) and bulk density (RHOB); track 6: estimates of volumetric concentrations of minerals; track 7: estimates of total porosity
(POR); track 8: well-log–based estimates of water saturation (Sw) compared to core measurements; track 9: well-log–based estimates of total organic carbon (TOC) (derived from bulk
density log) compared to core measurements; track 10: estimates of Young’s modulus (YM); track 11: estimates of Poisson’s ratio (PR); track 12: estimates of minimum horizontal stress
gradient (MHS-grad); track 13: outcome of the well-log–based petrophysical rock classification based on estimates of POR, Sw, TOC, volumetric concentration of clay, YM, and PR; and
track 14: outcome of the rock classification (RC) based on stress profiles (SPRC). GAPI = API gamma-ray unit; UEF = upper Eagle Ford.
 dependent on the shape assigned to each inclusion.
Shape factors for each component are assigned
based on an observation of two-dimensional micro-
XRF elemental maps that show the distribution of
elements. At the microscale, individual grains (e.g.,
calcite, quartz, zircon) are differentiable based on
their elemental composition and thus for each min-
eral the typical grain shape and size could be mea-
sured. Finally, Young’s modulus (E) and Poisson’s
ratio (v) are calculated via
9KpSC mpSC
E=
3KpSC + mpSC
and
3Kp - 2mpSC
n =  SCp 
2 3KSC + mpSC
Furthermore, for planning well completion design
and hydraulic fracture design, depth-by-depth mini-
mum horizontal stress (MHS) gradient as a function
of depth, modified after the Eaton’s equation (Eaton,
1969), is estimated via
n  
shmin = sv - ab Pp + ab Pp (5)
1-n
where shmin is the MHS, sv is the overburden stress,
Pp is the pore pressure, v is Poisson’s ratio, and ab is
Biot’s constant. Bulk density and resistivity logs were
used to predict the overburden stress and pore
pressure in this case. Biot’s constant at each depth is
estimated via
K was determined based on the total number of lith-
ab = 1 -
Km
where K is the bulk modulus of the rock includ-
ing both mineral and fluid phases, and Km is the
zero-porosity (i.e., only mineral phase) bulk mod-
ulus. The bulk and shear moduli are estimated
using the SCA method (equations 1, 2).
Geological Rock Classification
Variation in depositional environment moving up-
ward from the base of Eagle Ford is noticeable in the
texture of the recovered cores. These differences
are identified in the rock texture based on full core
photographs in addition to thin-section images. The
names of the lithofacies are based on (1) the ratio of
grain to matrix (percentages of fossils in the matrix)
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
on 10 February 2023
according to the carbonate classification by Dunham
(1962), (2) degree of lamination, and (3) type of the
existing fossils.
Geochemical Rock Classification
To classify rocks based on inorganic geochemical data
from the LEF, a sample rate of one measurement for
every 15 cm of core for XRF measurements were
collected. Through the analysis of major and trace
element concentrations, the formation is divided into
(3)
different chemostratigraphic units. The geochemical
classification provides information on vertical varia-
tions in paleoproductivity and redox conditions in
depositional environments, as well as postdepositional
(4)
processes such as diagenesis, organic maturation, and
hydrocarbon generation. After classification, the
Rock-Eval data are reviewed by class to provide ad-
ditional information of source-rock properties for
each class, such as hydrogen index (HI), oxygen in-
dex, and thermal maturity.
Petrophysical Rock Classification
After estimating petrophysical, compositional, and
geomechanical properties, a well-log–based rock
classification was conducted, adopting a hierarchi-
cal clustering algorithm to group similar rocks by
minimizing the total intraclass variance in each step
(Ward, 1963). The input (number of rock classes)
(6) ofacies observed from the combination of core and
geochemical studies.
Geomechanical Rock Classification
The LEF rocks are classified as low, medium, or high
stress based on the well-log–based estimates of MHS
at each depth.
FIELD EXAMPLE: EAGLE FORD FORMATION
The described method was applied to the LEF. This
section includes an overview on the geology of the
Eagle Ford Formation and the results of the described
rock classification schemes in two wells (well 1 and
AMIN ET AL. 1365
 well 2) located in the oil window of the Eagle Ford
Formation.
Geologic Background of the Eagle Ford
Formation
The Eagle Ford Formation, located mostly within
Texas, is one of the largest North American shale
plays in terms of liquid hydrocarbon production. As
of 2014, according to Stoneburner (2017), produc-
tion was reported as 1.3 million bbl/day of oil and 4.9
BCF/day of natural gas.
The deposition of the Eagle Ford sediments
represented a long-term flooding (mid-Cenomanian
through the end of Turonian) of the Comanche Reef
platform throughout most of Texas during the mid-
Cretaceous. The basins on the Comanche platform
and its margins initially experienced some restriction
and episodic anoxia (Wehner et al., 2015). The Eagle
Ford sediments primarily consist of alternating
mudstone or marlstone with limestone, along with
organic carbon content up to 10 wt. % TOC (Sun
et al., 2016), and occasional bentonitic ash beds.
The LEF appears to have been deposited during
basin restriction, storm deposition, and episodic
anoxia; these factors contributed to the ultimate
incorporation of organic matter (Wehner et al.,
2015). The variations of depositional condition
make the Eagle Ford Formation highly heteroge-
neous in the vertical dimension (at the centimeter
and decimeter thickness scales). Some of this ver-
tical heterogeneity can be predicted by sequence
stratigraphy (Donovan and Staerker, 2010; Donovan
et al., 2012; Donovan, 2016; Wehner et al., 2017).
Gardner et al. (2013) investigated the lateral var-
iation of Eagle Ford strata. They reported that the
scale of horizontal variation is minor at distances
of 5 km. Factors that influence vertical variation
include sea level at time of deposition, sediment
source, organic productivity, storm frequency, and
dominant diagenetic mechanisms.
The Eagle Ford marlstones and limestones can
be generally classified into one of Dunham’s classes,
commonly packstones and grainstones, with the
majority of grains being silt size. It does contain other
lithologies such as ash beds composed of bentonites
(sometimes tonsteins). The ash beds, commonly less
than 5 cm thick, are classified as massive bioturbated
1366 Integrated Completion-Oriented Rock Classification in the Eagle Ford Formation
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
on 10 February 2023
or bentonitic claystones with very high clay content.
The packstone–grainstone facies are limestone beds
up to 20 cm thick and composed of more than 75%
calcite. Minerals found in the Eagle Ford Formation
mainly consist of calcite, dolomite, quartz, pla-
gioclase, mixed-layer clays, and pyrite (Jennings
and Antia, 2013). Additionally, minor amounts of
K-feldspars, siderite, and apatite are reported. Clay
minerals typically have high percentages of illite
mixed layers, kaolinite, and minor chlorite content.
The wells used in this study are located in the oil
window of the Eagle Ford shale play in the Maverick
Basin, just north of Edwards reef margin. Figure 2
illustrates the geographic locations of the two wells.
In terms of mineralogy, calcite, quartz, illite mixed
layers, and kaolinite are dominant minerals in the
depth intervals of interest.
Rock-Eval pyrolysis measurements show high
vertical variation in organic properties such as TOC,
HI, and thermal maturity. Type II oil-prone kerogen
is present in well 1, with the temperature at which
the maximum rate of hydrocarbon generation
occurs during pyrolysis (Tmax) values ranging from
430°C to 450°C. For the petrophysical model, an
averaged vitrinite reflectance estimate (VRE) (data
provided by GeoMark Research based on Rock-
Eval) value of 0.81% was used to estimate a
kerogen density of 1.2 g/cm3, following the ap-
proach of Alfred and Vernik (2013) and Jagadi-
san et al. (2017). A similar vitrinite reflectance value
of 0.76% is reported in an experimental study on
isolated kerogen samples from the Eagle Ford For-
mation (Yang et al., 2016). Although using Tmax
values to estimate VRE is known to be problematic
(e.g., Zumberge et al., 2016), no additional data were
available to constrain the Tmax-based VRE and the
goal was an estimate of kerogen density.
Petrophysical Evaluation
Petrophysical and compositional properties were es-
timated in the LEF section of the two wells. Tracks
2–8 of Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the well logs and
well-log–based estimates of petrophysical and com-
positional properties, whereas Figure 5 shows ex-
amples of core x-ray elemental distribution images in
core samples from LEF that were used to calculate
 Figure 5. Mineral grains identified using two-dimensional x-ray elemental distribution maps from the lower Eagle Ford core samples.

shape factors used in the SCA approach for geo- assessment of acoustic compressional and shear
mechanical properties. slowness. Although larger error was observed in
Based on the analysis of x-ray images, quartz and estimates of shear-wave slowness, the approxima-
pyrite appear to be more spherical shaped. An aspect tion remains reliable for most of the depth interval.
ratio (a) of 1 is assigned to these minerals. However, Because of the limited number of x-ray images, a
for clay minerals in which the structure consists of single model was used for the LEF interval. How-
nanometer-scale layers, an a of 0.01 was assumed. ever, the availability of several high-resolution
Figure 5 shows the identified calcite grains to be core images can potentially enable the assign-
compacted and interbedded with clays in an ellipti- ment of zonal shape factors based on rock facies
cal form at specific zones and in another place more classification, resulting in a more robust and reliable
spherically shaped. Therefore, two different shape model. After application of the calibrated SCA model
factors were assigned to calcite constituents (0.1 for
elliptical and 1 for spherical grains). Table 1 sum- Table 1. Input Parameters to the Self-Consistent Approximation
marizes the input constants that minimized the dif- Model for Geomechanical Properties
ference between estimated acoustic-wave slowness
Rock Constituents K, GPa m, GPa a
and those from acoustic well logs in the wells in
which acoustic measurements are available (e.g., well Calcite (spherical) 75 40 1
2). The same input parameters are used as input to Calcite (elliptical) 75 40 0.1
the SCA model in wells in which acoustic logs are not Quartz 38 44 1
available to estimate elastic properties. Pyrite 147 132 1
Figure 6 shows the estimates of petrophysical Illite mixed layers 8 6 0.01
and compositional properties, as well as the comparison Kaolinite 6 2 0.01
between the estimates of compressional- and shear- Kerogen 5 3 0.1
wave slowness from SCA and acoustic well logs in Abbreviations: a = aspect ratio; m = shear modulus of the rock; K = bulk modulus
well 2. The SCA results provide a higher-resolution of the rock.

AMIN ET AL. 1367

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
on 10 February 2023
 Figure 6. Well 2, lower Eagle Ford field example: conventional well logs, estimates of volumetric concentration of minerals, and acoustic
well logs. Tracks from left to right include track 1: depth; track 2: high-resolution gamma ray (HGR), caliper (HCAL); track 3: array
induction resistivity logs (AT10–AT90); track 4: neutron porosity (NPHI) (in water-filled limestone units), bulk density (RHOB); track 5:
estimates of volumetric concentrations of minerals; track 6: self-consistent approximation (SCA)–based estimates of compressional-wave
slowness compared to the acoustic well-log measurement (DTCO); and track 7: SCA-based estimates of shear-wave slowness compared to
the acoustic well-log measurement (DTSH). DTC = delta-T compressional; DTS = delta-T shear; GAPI = API gamma-ray unit.

1368 Integrated Completion-Oriented Rock Classification in the Eagle Ford Formation

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
on 10 February 2023
on 10 February 2023
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
AMIN ET AL.
Figure 7. Well 1, lower Eagle Ford (LEF) field example: conventional well logs and vertical distribution of major and trace elements in the LEF. Tracks from left to right include track 1:
depth; track 2: high-resolution gamma ray (HGR), caliper (HCAL); track 3: array induction resistivity logs (AT10–AT90); track 4: neutron porosity (NPHI) (in water-filled limestone units),
bulk density (RHOB); track 5: chemostratigraphy of LEF; tracks 6–15: calcium (Ca), silicon (Si), aluminum (Al), potassium (K), iron (Fe), sulfur (S), uranium (U), molybdenum (Mo),
vanadium (V), and nickel (Ni) weight concentrations obtained from core x-ray fluorescence measurements; and track 16: total organic carbon (TOC) weight concentration (LECO TOC
measurements). GAPI = API gamma-ray unit; RC = rock classification.

1369
 to wells 1 and 2, values of Young’s modulus and Pois-
son’s ratio were estimated as a function of depth. Tracks
9 and 10 of Figure 3 and tracks 10 and 11 of Figure 4
illustrate the final estimates of Young’s modulus and
Poisson’s ratio in well 1 and well 2, respectively.
Chemostratigraphy in the LEF
The LEF was divided into five geochemical classes
(LEF1 to LEF5, in ascending order from the bottom
upward) based on variations in major (Ca, Si, Al, K,
Fe, S) and trace elements (U, V, Ni, Mo) and TOC
contents. Figure 7 displays the core XRF measure-
ments obtained in the LEF as a function of depth.
Furthermore, Figure 8 displays a matrix scatterplot
of the geochemical data. Through analysis of the
results, distinguishing geochemical characteristics
among the classes are highlighted: the lowest unit,
LEF5, is at the base of LEF, on top of the Buda
Limestone, and is chemostratigraphically distinct.
The U content is the highest in this interval, and the
Si/Al ratio is very low (~1.5–3). In terms of organic
geochemistry, TOC is moderate to high (4–5 wt. %).

Figure 8. Matrix scatterplot showing the correlation between the concentration of major elements (Ca, Al, Si, Fe, S), trace elements (Mo,
U, Ni, V), and total organic carbon (TOC) in the lower Eagle Ford, obtained from core x-ray fluorescence measurements. Although some
elements show poor correlation or exhibit inverse correlation, the following correlated element pairs include Mo–U, Mo–TOC, Fe–S, Fe–Al,
and Si–Al. The trace elements Mo, U, Ni, and V are reported in parts per million; the rest are in weight percent.

1370 Integrated Completion-Oriented Rock Classification in the Eagle Ford Formation

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
on 10 February 2023
 The next unit, LEF4, is distinguished by its lower
TOC content (2–4 wt. %). The LEF3 is similar to
LEF4, except it contains higher TOC (>4 wt. %) and
lower Ca content. Transitioning to LEF2, there is a
significant increase in concentration of trace elements
such as V, Ni, Mo, and U. At the very top of the LEF,
LEF1 has a linearly decreasing Ca content and, like-
wise, increasing Al and Si content. The V concentra-
tion remains similar to that in LEF2, and a significant
decrease in Ni concentration is observed. Table 2 lists
the distribution of the elemental concentrations (i.e.,
S, U, V, Ni), as well as TOC of the different classes,
that were used as the basis of discrimination among
the geochemical classes. Track 11 of Figure 3 shows
the chemostratigraphic units in well 1. The key pet-
rophysically relevant observations from the aforemen-
tioned chemostratigraphic analysis are summarized
below.
Although both the top and the bottom of LEF
contain clays, the clay type distribution is not the
same. Kaolinite is significant in the lowermost unit,
LEF5, as presented by the very low Si/Al ratio (<2)
and low K (0.2–0.3 wt. %). These characteristics
indicate that illite is diluted by the presence of a
clay mineral that is not potassic yet has low Si
content.
The best reservoir rock classes, LEF1 and LEF2,
appear to be associated with intervals of extreme
enrichment of specific trace metals, including V and
Ni. These two elements, along with U and Mo, are
considered to be useful indicators for productivity
and preservation of organic matter, as well as for
distinguishing among different types of anoxia (Wilde
et al., 2004; Tribovillard et al., 2006). Although pa-
leoredox conditions have been defined classically in
terms of inferred water column oxygen concentra-
tions (i.e., oxic, suboxic, and anoxic), more consistent
classifications are defined by inferring the dominant
oxidant used for microbial respiration in the water
column. Such classifications are effectively based on
how chemically reducing the environment was at the
time of deposition. These classifications, or zones, are
oxic, nitrogenous, manganous, ferruginous, sulfidic,
and methanic (Canfield and Thamdrup, 2009). Con-
sistent with previous classifications, sulfidic conditions
in the water column are referred to as euxinic. In
practice, paleoredox conditions corresponding to oxic,
ferruginous, and sulfidic zones can be inferred from
the relative concentrations of the trace metals U, Mo,
V, and Ni. For the purposes of this study, oxic, ni-
trogenous, and manganous conditions are all classified
as oxic, and sulfidic and methanic are classified as
sulfidic or euxinic. Both U and Mo can accumulate in
sediments under various anoxic conditions, but U
tends to accumulate most efficiently under ferruginous
conditions, whereas Mo reduction (and accumulation)
is not triggered until sulfate reduction begins (sulfi-
dic or euxinic conditions). However, although V
and Ni are reduced under anoxic conditions (Fe
and sulfate reducing) in the ocean, they are more
efficiently incorporated into the sediments by
bonding with specific organic molecules under
ferruginous and sulfidic conditions. According to
Lewan (1984), V and Ni concentrations, and their
relative proportions, can convey information about
kerogen type and presence of trapped hydrocar-
bons. Figure 9 shows a class-by-class distribution of
the Rock-Eval parameters, including the amount of
free hydrocarbons present in the sample (S1), HI, and
Tmax. The S1 and the amount of hydrocarbons
generated during pyrolysis (S 2 ) values from
Rock-Eval measurements confirm that hydrocarbon
content is high when V and Ni are high.

Table 2. Vertical Distribution of Core X-Ray Fluorescence Measurements of Elemental Weight Concentrations Arranged by Geochemical
Rock Class in Well 1

Geochemical Rock Classification S, wt. % U, ppm V, ppm Ni, ppm TOC, wt. %
LEF1 1.4 – 0.2 7.0 – 1.3 404 – 102 64 – 24 4.3 – 0.6
LEF2 2.3 – 0.6 7.5 – 1.3 391 – 112 126 – 65 5.0 – 0.8
LEF3 2.5 – 0.7 6.2 – 1.7 176 – 61 81 – 37 4.4 – 0.9
LEF4 2.2 – 0.5 6.9 – 1.5 207 – 97 70 – 33 3.0 – 0.5
LEF5 2.6 – 0.6 12 – 2.0 192 – 62 75 – 34 4.1 – 0.4

Abbreviations: LEF = lower Eagle Ford; TOC = total organic carbon.

AMIN ET AL. 1371

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
on 10 February 2023
 The concentrations of trace elements appeared
to correspond more closely to hydrocarbon content
compared to TOC. Although the TOC varies be-
tween geological rock classes, it does not directly cor-
relate with the volume of in situ hydrocarbons.

Lithofacies Classification

Through the analysis of thin sections and core images

obtained from 44 m of drill core, four lithofacies in
the LEF interval were identified. Moving upward
from the base of the Eagle Ford, a transition from a
massive and weakly laminated texture to a repetitive
alternating pair of lithofacies that dominates the
majority of the LEF section was observed. The pair
consists of two main subfacies: foraminiferal mud-
stone and packstones. These facies alternate at different
thickness scales from submillimeter up to decimeter.
Furthermore, mixtures of these facies are common
depending on the scale of observation. Typically, this
pair of facies has minimal or no bioturbation and
transitions between facies are sharp. The foraminif-
eral mudstones consist of bioclastic grains (10–100
mm), carbonate mud, and clays. The bioclastic grains
are mostly foraminiferal tests but can include other
skeletal remains of ostracods, diatoms, and bivalves.
Perhaps with the exception of bivalves, the bioclastic
grains in the LEF are planktonic with no or very few
benthic ones having been reported to date (Lowery
et al., 2014). The packstone–grainstones are essentially
composed of planktonic foraminifera but without
significant clays or other siliciclastics. They tend to
be very light gray in color. Diagenetic packstone–
grainstones look much like the regular packstone–
grainstones but contain many diagenetic features,
including recrystallization, calcite cement, concre-
tions, and dolomitization. Figure 10 displays the core
Figure 9. Summary of the Rock-Eval pyrolysis measure-
photographs that represent different lithofacies.
ments (A) free hydrocarbons present in the sample (S1), (B)
The four identified lithofacies in the LEF include hydrogen index, and (C) temperature at which the maximum
massive argillaceous mudstone, laminated argillaceous rate of hydrocarbon generation occurs during pyrolysis
foraminiferal mudstone, bedded foraminiferal mudstone (Tmax ). The results are presented separately in the five
and nodular limestone, and bedded foraminiferal identified geochemical classes. LEF = lower Eagle Ford.
wackestone and limestone, which are described as
follows.
Eagle Ford. Low counts of foraminifera are iden-
1. Massive argillaceous mudstone: mudstone facies tified in these mudstones, and clay content is high
with little to no discernable bedding structures compared to other lithofacies, consisting of illite
or internal structures are present at the base of mixed layers and kaolinite.

1372 Integrated Completion-Oriented Rock Classification in the Eagle Ford Formation

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
on 10 February 2023
 2. Laminated argillaceous foraminiferal mudstone:
this facies has a medium gray color and millimeter-
scale laminations with mudstones and limestone
laminations composed of foraminifera. Commonly,
the proportion of mudstone to foraminifera-rich
limestone changes in these facies. Reported min-
eralogy indicates carbonate content as low as
45%, with total clay content up to 30% in weight,
consisting of illite and kaolinite.
3. Bedded foraminiferal mudstone and nodular lime-
stone: dark-gray to black illite-rich mudstones with
faint laminations, where the limestone beds are
Figure 10. Examples of core images associated with the lithofacies in the lower Eagle Ford, from well 1. Red lines represent sharp
contrast across rock types within lithofacies.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
on 10 February 2023
nodular or have thickening–thinning (carbonate
nodules described by Dawson, 2000). Commonly,
internal structures of the nodular limestones are
obliterated by pore-filling cementation and recrys-
tallization. The transition between mudstones and
limestones is sharp in this facies. Moreover, because
the bounding surfaces of the nodular laminations are
commonly curving, it is possible that in some cases,
the nodular limestones are laterally discontinuous.
4. Bedded foraminiferal wackestone and limestone:
the wackestone is dark gray to black because of very
high organic content ranging from 4 to 6 wt. %.
AMIN ET AL. 1373
 Wackestones contain thin foraminiferal lags and
isolated bivalves. The limestone beds with thickness
of a few inches up to 0.3 m are foraminiferal
packstone and grainstones transitioning at
sharp boundaries with the wackestones. The
abundance of bioclastic grains in this lithotype
is high in the LEF unlike the deeper mudstone
facies.
Figure 11 illustrates different examples of the thin-
section images associated with foraminiferal packstone
or grainstone, wackestone, and mudstone facies. These
images show a variation in proportions of bioclastic
grains to mud. Foraminifers are the most abundant
fossils in the LEF and are composed of calcite. In some
cases, these fossils were impacted by various de-
grees of dissolution. Furthermore, the dark-gray to
black color of the matrix mud is caused by a com-
bination of high organic content and clay minerals
present in these rocks. Based on Dunham’s carbo-
nate classification, the grain-to-matrix ratio is more
than 90% for packstones and grainstones. This ratio in

Figure 11. Thin-section examples of the identified facies in the lower Eagle Ford (LEF). (A) Foraminiferal packstone or grainstone;
associated with limestone nodules at the top of LEF. (B) Skeletal packstone; an inoceramid shell is evident in this image. (C) Foraminiferal
wackestone; calcite-filled foraminifera are noticeable in the image. (D) Foraminiferal mudstone; dissolved foraminifera are noticeable in
this image. (E) Laminated foraminiferal mudstone; submillimeter foraminiferal lamina is evident in the image.

1374 Integrated Completion-Oriented Rock Classification in the Eagle Ford Formation

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
on 10 February 2023
 wackestones is between 10% and 90% and less than
10% for mudstones.

Petrophysical Rock Classification

Inputs to the well-log–based classification include

porosity, S w , TOC, volumetric concentration of
clay, Young’s modulus, and Poisson’s ratio. Track
13 of Figure 3 and track 11 of Figure 4, show the
petrophysical classification results in well 1 and well 2,
respectively. Furthermore, Figure 12 shows crossplots
of the estimates of petrophysical and compositional
properties for both wells. Tables 3 and 4 include sta-
tistics by class of the well-log–based classification
results in well 1 and well 2, respectively.
The petrophysical classes were ranked through
an integrated rock characterization approach. To
fully characterize the petrophysical classes, the
results of the previously described geological and
geochemical classifications were interpreted, with
the results of petrophysical classification presented in
this section. The characteristics of each petrophysical
rock class (PRC) is described as follows.

• The PRC1 occurs interbedded throughout the

rock classes except the massive argillaceous mud-
stones. Geologically, this class is a carbonate with
low porosity and occurs interbedded with other
PRCs, with low hydrocarbon content (i.e., less than
0.3 wt. %).
• The PRC2 corresponds to the massive argilla-
ceous mudstones. This class is notable for kaolinite
content up to 15% (vol. %). The TOC is high (2–3
wt. %), and the rock contains small volumes of free
hydrocarbon.
• The PRC3 is associated with the laminated ar-
gillaceous foraminiferal mudstones. It appears to
be a mudstone with low porosity and high TOC
(~2–3 wt. %).
• The PRC4 is interbedded with PRC1 in the
bedded foraminiferal mudstone and nodular
limestone. It is a porous (~8.5% porosity) mud-
stone with very high TOC content (3–5 wt. %) and
the lowest estimated Young’s modulus among the Figure 12. Well-log–based estimates of (A) total organic
carbon (TOC) versus porosity, (B) TOC versus volumetric con-
other rock classes. The Sw is the highest in this rock
centration of clay (Vclay), and (C) water saturation (Sw) versus
class. porosity in well 1 and well 2. Different colors represent different
• The PRC5 represents the organic-rich forami- petrophysical rock classes (PRC).
niferal wackestone facies. Petrophysically, it is

AMIN ET AL. 1375

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
on 10 February 2023
 Table 3. Well 1: Statistics by Class of the Well-Log–Based Rock Classification Results in the Lower Eagle Ford

PRC Porosity, % TOC, wt. % Vclay, % Sw, % YM PR

PRC1 3.5 – 0.6 3.8 – 0.8 12 – 4 17 – 7 39 – 6 0.27 – 0.01
PRC2 5.5 – 0.8 2.8 – 1.1 29 – 4 20 – 3 26 – 4 0.29 – 0.01
PRC3 3.9 – 0.3 2.7 – 0.5 24 – 4 16 – 3 34 – 2 0.27 – 0.01
PRC4 8.5 – 1.1 4.8 – 0.5 14 – 2 28 – 4 22 – 2 0.33 – 0.01
PRC5 7.0 – 1.3 5.0 – 0.7 12 – 4 16 – 3 28 – 3 0.30 – 0.01
Abbreviations: PR = Poisson’s ratio; PRC = petrophysical rock classification; Sw = water saturation; TOC = total organic carbon; Vclay = volume of clay; YM = Young’s modulus.

similar to PRC4, with slightly higher hydrocarbon
content and lower Sw estimates compared to PRC4.
In the determination of reservoir-quality rock classes,
factors such as storage capacity, organic richness,
thermal maturity of kerogen, and free hydrocarbon
content in the rocks are considered. Figure 13 shows
Rock-Eval measurements of S1 versus TOC in the
LEF, separated by petrophysical class. It is evident
from the data that high TOC is not a direct indicator
of high free hydrocarbon content. For instance,
at TOC concentrations more than 4 wt. %, PRC5
and PRC4 contain significantly higher free hydro-
carbons compared to PRC3 and PRC2. Through
integration of petrophysical and geochemical data,
PRC5 and PRC4 were determined as the best
reservoir-quality rock classes in the LEF. The PRC5 and
PRC4 are organic-rich, oil-prone, and porous mud-
rocks that contain substantial quantities of in situ
hydrocarbon.
Geomechanical Rock Classification Based
on Stress Profiles
After identification of the best reservoir-quality rock
classes in the formation, it is essential to conduct a
geomechanical evaluation to ensure the ability to
create effective fracture networks as pathways for
hydrocarbon transport. In tectonically relaxed areas,
hydraulically induced fractures propagate in the vertical
direction, perpendicular to the MHS (Zhou et al., 2008).
Furthermore, the required fracture initiation and pro-
pagation pressure depends on the magnitude of the
least principal stress (Hubbert and Willis, 1972).
The MHS gradient in well 1 and well 2 were
estimated using well logs and cross-validated with
the output from the available fracture closure pressure
measurements obtained from multistage hydraulic
fracture data in well 2. Track 14 of Figure 3 and track
12 of Figure 4, illustrate the estimated MHS gradient
in well 1 and well 2, respectively. Track 15 of Figure 3
and track 14 of Figure 4 show the results of geo-
mechanical rock classifications based on stress
profiles (SPRC), including high MHS (SPRC1),
medium MHS (SPRC2), and low MHS (SPRC3)
levels. The results indicate that the MHS gradient
varies considerably when moving across geologic fa-
cies. The MHS gradient ranges between 8 and 19
kPa/m (0.35–0.85 psi/ft), with an average MHS
gradient of 13 kPa/m (0.58 psi/ft) in well 1 and 14
kPa/m (0.62 psi/ft) in well 2 in the LEF. Table 5
summarizes the statistics by class of the MHS gradi-
ent in both wells. The results of the classification
based on MHS indicate higher proportions of the

Table 4. Well 2: Statistics by Class of the Well-Log–Based Rock Classification Results in the Lower Eagle Ford

PRC Porosity, % TOC, wt. % Vclay, % Sw, % YM PR

PRC1 4.6 – 0.8 2.1 – 0.8 9– 3 28 – 7 36 – 6 0.28 – 0.01

PRC2 6.6 – 1.1 2.7 – 0.7 20 – 3 28 – 6 26 – 4 0.30 – 0.01
PRC3 4.8 – 0.7 2.4 – 0.6 17 – 2 30 – 3 28 – 5 0.30 – 0.01
PRC4 8.1 – 0.9 3.5 – 0.4 20 – 3 39 – 6 23 – 3 0.32 – 0.01
PRC5 7.0 – 1.0 4.5 – 0.7 17 – 3 18 – 4 25 – 3 0.30 – 0.01

Abbreviations: PR = Poisson’s ratio; PRC = petrophysical rock classification; Sw = water saturation; TOC = total organic carbon; Vclay = volume of clay; YM = Young’s modulus.

1376 Integrated Completion-Oriented Rock Classification in the Eagle Ford Formation

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
on 10 February 2023

Figure 13. Well 1: Rock-Eval pyrolysis measurements of free
hydrocarbons present in the sample (S1) versus total organic
carbon (TOC) in the lower Eagle Ford. Different colors represent
different petrophysical rock classes (PRC).
low-stress rock class (i.e., SPRC3) in well 1 (55% of
gross thickness) compared to well 2 (34% of gross
thickness). Figure 14 shows the histogram compari-
son of MHS gradient in the LEF for well 1 and well 2.
The green bars represent SPRC3 where the MHS
gradient is lower than 12.4 kPa/m (0.55 psi/ft), and
red bars represent SPRC1 where the MHS gradient is
higher than 14.7 kPa/m (0.65 psi/ft). Because rocks
of SPRC3 can fracture at lower pressure (Figure 14),
it is considered a better completion quality class
compared to SPRC2 and SPRC1.
Integrated Completion-Based
Recommendation
Final recommendation of the best target interval for
horizontal well placement followed by multistage
Table 5. Statistics by Class of the Minimum Horizontal Stress
Gradient in Wells 1 and 2 in the Lower Eagle Ford
MHS Gradient, kPa/m (psi/ft)
Rock Class Well 1
SPRC1 16.5 (0.73)
SPRC2 14.0 (0.62)
SPRC3 10.9 (0.48)
Abbreviations: MHS = minimum horizontal stress; SPRC1 = rock class with high
MHS profile; SPRC2 = rock class with medium MHS profile; SPRC3 = rock class
with low MHS profile.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
on 10 February 2023
hydraulic fracturing is based on an integrated analysis
of the conducted rock classifications in the pilot sec-
tion of well 1 and well 2. This integration considers
properties such as organic richness, storage capacity,
fluid saturation, clay volume, and MHS. Additionally,
for well 1, geological and geochemical characteristics
of the selected target interval for decision-making
were included.
Based on the results of the integrated rock clas-
sification reported in Table 6, in well 1, X180–X192 m
(XX430–XX470 ft) was selected as the best target
interval for completions. Geologically, this interval
represents the foraminiferal wackestone facies where
the organic content can reach up to 6 wt. %. Fur-
thermore, the geochemical classification results indi-
cated significant enrichment of trace elements (e.g., V
and Ni), which correlates with higher hydrocarbon
contents. This target interval contains the best
reservoir-quality class (PRC5) combined with PRC1,
which represent the thinly bedded limestone units.
However, because of their limited thickness, these
limestone beds are not expected to act as a barrier to
the induced hydraulic fractures. Geomechanically,
the selected target zone is a low-MHS rock, which
makes it a good candidate for fracture initiation and
propagation. A 1500-m horizontal lateral at X186 m
(XX450 ft) was landed in well 1. Production history
Well 2
16.1 (0.71)
14.0 (0.62)
Figure 14. Comparison of histograms of the minimum hori-
12.4 (0.55) zontal stress (MHS) gradient for wells 1 and 2 in the lower Eagle
Ford. Different colors represent different rock classes. SPRC1 =
rock class with high MHS profile; SPRC2 = rock class with me-
dium MHS profile; SPRC3 = rock class with low MHS profile.
AMIN ET AL. 1377
 Table 6. Well 1: Quantitative Analysis of the Petrophysical, Geochemical, and Geomechanical Characteristics of Each Petrophysical Rock
Class and Its Representative Lithofacies

Petrophysical Rock
Class PRC1 PRC2 PRC3 PRC4 PRC5
Massive Argillaceous Laminated Argillaceous Foraminiferal Foraminiferal
Lithofacies Limestone Mudstone Foraminiferal Mudstone Mudstone Wackestone
Calcite, vol. % 60 –4 47 – 4 56 – 3 49 – 6 54 – 7
Quartz, vol. % 15 –3 10 – 3 10 – 2 18 – 3 16 – 4
Clays, vol. % 12 –4 29 – 4 24 – 3 14 – 3 12 – 4
Porosity, % 3.5– 0.7 5.5 – 0.8 3.9 – 0.3 8.4 – 1.1 7.0 – 1.3
Sw, % 18 –7 20 – 3 15 – 3 29 – 4 17 – 3
TOC, wt. % — 2.8 2.7 – 0.4 4.8 – 0.5 5.0 – 0.7
S1, mgHC/g — 2.3 2.4 – 0.5 6.0 – 1.3 7.6 – 2.0
S2, mgHC/g — 2.7 2.7 – 0.7 4.6 – 1.4 6.0 – 1.0
Tmax, °C — 447 448 – 6 441 – 7 443 – 8
HI — 63 66 – 7 131 – 13 127 – 20
MHS-grad, psi/ft 0.50 – 0.1 0.56 – 0.05 0.47 – 0.03 0.76 – 0.05 0.63 – 0.09
Mean and standard deviation values are reported for each class.
Abbreviations: — = not applicable; HI = hydrogen index; MHS-grad = minimum horizontal stress gradient; PRC = petrophysical rock classification; S1 = free hydrocarbons
present in the sample; S2 = amount of hydrocarbons generated during pyrolysis; Sw = water saturation; Tmax = temperature at which the maximum rate of hydrocarbon
generation occurs during pyrolysis; TOC = total organic carbon.

shows a 90-day production of greater than 50,000
BOE.
In well 2, X330–X338 m (XX925–XX950 ft)
was selected as the best target interval for comple-
tions. This target is a low-MHS interval adjacent to
PRC5 rocks, which represents the best PRC. In both
wells, the upper part of the LEF appears to be
ductile, with MHS estimates of greater than 15.8
kPa/m (greater than 0.75 psi/ft). A horizontal lateral
with a length of more than 1800 m was drilled and
hydraulically fractured in well 2. In most stages,
the fracture closure pressure gradient of 0.68 psi/ft
(15.4 kPa/m) was observed. It is possible that the
upper 9 m of the LEF in these wells acts as a
fracture barrier and restricts the propagation up-
ward out of the target formation. Production his-
tory of well 2 shows a 90-day production of greater
than 40,000 BOE, which is approximately 20%
less than well 1.
Comparison of Well Productivity
Figure 15 illustrates the cumulative 90-day hydro-
carbon and water production for well 1 and well 2.
Well 1 produced a cumulative volume of 54,000
BOE hydrocarbons and a water production of 1000
bbl in the first 90 days after completions. In com-
parison, well 2 produced 43,000 BOE hydrocarbons
and 10,000 bbl of water over the same time interval.
In wells 1 and 2, very similar petrophysical prop-
erties such as organic richness, storage capacity, fluid
saturations, and total volumetric concentration of clay
were observed in the reservoir-quality rock classes.
However, the geomechanical analysis showed a different
distribution of stress profiles among these wells.
Overall, well 1 contains higher proportions of
higher-quality reservoir rock and a better vertical
continuity of low-MHS rock units, as well as a
slightly lower average MHS in the LEF, compared
to well 2. Furthermore, thin-bedded limestone
intervals in well 1 and thicker limestone layers in
well 2 were observed, which can potentially act as
barriers to hydraulic fractures. This difference in
stratigraphic distribution of rock classes and MHS
can impact the vertical propagation of hydrauli-
cally induced fractures and, consequently, the total
stimulated reservoir volume. Although the pres-
ence of natural fractures was not investigated because
of the lack of image logs, the different geomechanical
characteristics among these wells could potentially
explain some of the well production difference.

1378 Integrated Completion-Oriented Rock Classification in the Eagle Ford Formation

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
on 10 February 2023

Figure 15. Cumulative 90-day hydrocarbon and water pro-
duction in wells 1 and 2. Green and blue bars represent
hydrocarbon and water production, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Results demonstrated that a reliable integrated rock
classification can significantly improve unconventional
reservoir productivity forecast. Recommendation of
target intervals for horizontal well placement and
multistage hydraulic fracturing based on an integrated
analysis of rock classification results was then pre-
sented. The correlation between PRCs and the
identified lithofacies showed distinct petrophysical
properties in each geological rock class, and this result
was used as a validation for the reliability of the
petrophysical classification in well 1. Additionally,
high-resolution geochemical measurements on the
core were used to build accurate mineral models,
differentiate clay types, and provide insights of the
chemical conditions of the depositional environment
related to generation and preservation of organic
matter. Results showed that the concentration of
certain elements such as Ni and V in the LEF cor-
related directly with in situ hydrocarbon content
obtained from Rock-Eval measurements. Fur-
thermore, it was observed that reservoir quality is
significantly reduced in the bottom interval of LEF,
where kaolinitic clays are present.
The comparison between well 1 and well 2, which
are petrophysically similar, proves the importance of
geomechanical properties in the assessment of well
productivity. Lithological differences between these
wells are possibly causing the observed variation in ge-
omechanical properties. Well 1, with higher proportions
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
on 10 February 2023
of low-MHS rock class, produced an excess of 11,000
BOE (20 vol. %) in the first 90 days after comple-
tions. The results demonstrated that the difference in
production between the two wells could not be ex-
plained by only relying on the estimated petrophysical
properties of the formation. Geomechanical properties
such as in situ stresses and presence of natural fractures
are important factors in well productivity and must
be considered in rock classification for completion
decisions.
REFERENCES CITED
Aderibigbe, A., C. Chen Valdes, and Z. Heidari, 2016, Inte-
grated rock classification in the Wolfcamp Shale based on
reservoir quality and anisotropic stress profile estimated from
well logs: Interpretation, v. 4, no. 2, p. SF1–SF18, doi:
10.1190/INT-2015-0138.1.
Alfred, D., and L. Vernik, 2013, A new petrophysical model
for organic shales: Petrophysics, v. 54, no. 3, p. 240–247.
Archie, G. E., 1952, Classification of carbonate reservoir rocks
and petrophysical considerations: AAPG Bulletin, v. 36,
no. 2, p. 278–298, doi:10.1306/3D9343F7-16B1-11D7-
8645000102C1865D.
Bardon, C., and B. Pied, 1969, Formation water saturation in
shaly sands: Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log
Analysts 10th Annual Logging Symposium, Houston,
Texas, May 25–28, 1969, SPWLA-1969-Z, 19 p.
Berryman, J. G., 1995, Mixture theories for rock properties,
in T. J. Ahrens, ed., Rock physics and phase relations: A
handbook of physical constants: Washington, DC, American
Geophysical Union, v. 3, p. 205–228, doi:10.1029/RF003.
Bhattacharya, S., T. R. Carr, and M. Pal, 2016, Comparison of
supervised and unsupervised approaches for mudstone
lithofacies classification: Case studies from the Bakken
and Mahantago-Marcellus Shale, USA: Journal of Natural
Gas Science and Engineering, v. 33, p. 1119–1133, doi:
10.1016/j.jngse.2016.04.055.
Brumsack, H. J., 2006, The trace metal content of recent
organic carbon-rich sediments: Implications for Creta-
ceous black shale formation: Palaeogeography, Palae-
oclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 232, no. 2–4, p. 344–361,
doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2005.05.011.
Canfield, D. E., and B. Thamdrup, 2009, Towards a consis-
tent classification scheme for geochemical environ-
ments, or, why we wish the term ‘suboxic’ would go
away: Geobiology, v. 7, no. 4, p. 385–392, doi:10.1111
/j.1472-4669.2009.00214.x.
Dawson, W. C., 2000, Shale microfacies: Eagle Ford Group
(Cenomanian-Turonian) north-central Texas outcrops
and subsurface equivalents: GCAGS Transactions, v. 50,
p. 607–622.
Donovan, A. D., 2016, Making outcrops relevant for an un-
conventional source rock play: An example from the
Eagle Ford Group of Texas, in M. Bowman, H. R. Smyth,
AMIN ET AL. 1379
 S. R. Passey, J. P. P. Hirst, and C. J. Jordan, eds., The
value of outcrop studies in reducing subsurface uncer-
tainty and risk in hydrocarbon exploration and produc-
tion: Geological Society, London, Special Publications
2016, v. 436, doi:10.1144/SP436.12.
Donovan, A. D., and T. S. Staerker, 2010, Sequence stra-
tigraphy of the Eagle Ford (Boquillas) Formation in the
subsurface of South Texas and outcrops of West Texas:
GCAGS Transactions, v. 60, p. 861–899.
Donovan, A. D., T. S. Staerker, R. Gardner, M. C. Pope,
A. Pramudito, and M. Wehner, 2016, Findings from the
Eagle Ford outcrops of West Texas and implications to
the subsurface of South Texas, in J. A. Breyer, ed., The
Eagle Ford Shale: A renaissance in U.S. oil produc-
tion: AAPG Memoir 110, p. 301–336, doi:10.1306
/13541967M1101083.
Donovan, A. D., T. S. Staerker, A. Pramudito, W. Li,
M. J. Corbett, C. M. Lowery, A. M. Romero, and
R. D. Gardner, 2012, The Eagle Ford outcrops of
west Texas: A laboratory for understanding hetero-
geneities within unconventional mudstone reservoirs:
GCAGS Journal, v. 1, p. 162–185.
Dunham, R. J., 1962, Classification of carbonate rocks ac-
cording to depositional textures, in W. E. Ham, ed., Clas-
sification of carbonate rocks—A symposium: AAPG
Memoir 1, p. 108–121.
Eaton, B. A., 1969, Fracture gradient prediction and its ap-
plication to oilfield operations: Journal of Petroleum
Technology, v. 21, no. 10, p. 1353–1360, doi:10.2118
/2163-PA.
Energy Information Administration, 2014, EIA updates Eagle
Ford maps to provide greater geologic detail, accessed
January 19, 2021, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy
/detail.php?id=19651#.
Folk, R. L., 1962, Spectral subdivision of limestone types,
in W. E. Ham, ed., Classification of carbonate rocks—A
symposium: AAPG Memoir 1, p. 62–84.
Gardner, R. D., M. C. Pope, M. P. Wehner, and A. D. Donovan,
2013, Comparative stratigraphy of the Eagle Ford Group
strata in Lozier Canyon and Antonio Creek, Terrell
County: GCAGS Journal, v. 2, p. 42–52.
Hubbert, M. K., and D. G. Willis, 1972, Mechanics of hy-
draulic fracturing, in T. D. Cook, ed., Underground waste
management and environmental implications: AAPG
Memoir 18, p. 239–257.
Jagadisan, A., A. Yang, and Z. Heidari, 2017, Experimental
quantification of the impact of thermal maturity on ker-
ogen density: Petrophysics, v. 58, no. 6, p. 603–612.
Jennings, D. S., and J. Antia, 2013, Petrographic character-
ization of the Eagle Ford Shale, South Texas: Mineralogy,
common constituents, and distribution of nanometer-
scale pore types, in W. Camp, E. Diaz, and B. Wawak,
eds., Electron microscopy of shale hydrocarbon reser-
voirs: AAPG Memoir 102, p. 101–114, doi:10
.1306/13391708M1023586.
Kale, S., C. Rai, and C. Sondergeld, 2010, Rock typing in gas
shales: Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, September
19–22, 2010, SPE-134539-MS, 20 p.
1380 Integrated Completion-Oriented Rock Classification in the Eagle Ford Formation
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
on 10 February 2023
Lewan, M. D., 1984, Factors controlling the proportionality
of vanadium to nickel in crude oils: Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta, v. 48, no. 11, p. 2231–2238, doi:
10.1016/0016-7037(84)90219-9.
Lock, B. E., L. Peschier, and N. Whitcomb, 2010, The Eagle
Ford (Boquillas Formation) of Val Verde County,
Texas—A window on the South Texas Play: GCAGS
Transactions, v. 60, p. 419–434.
Lowery, C. M., M. J. Corbett, R. M. Leckie, D. Watkins,
A. M. Romero, and A. Pramudito, 2014, Foraminiferal
and nannofossil paleoecology and paleoceanography of
the Cenomanian–Turonian Eagle Ford Shale of southern
Texas: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology,
v. 413, p. 49–65, doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2014.07.025.
Mavko, G., T. Mukerji, and J. Dvorkin, 2009, The rock
physics handbook: Tools for seismic analysis of porous
media: New York, Cambridge University Press, 511 p.
Petriello, J., S. Marino, R. Suarez-Rivera, D. A. Handwerger,
S. Herring, W. Woodruff, and K. Stevens, 2013, Inte-
gration of quantitative rock classification with core-based
geologic studies: Improved regional-scale modeling and
efficient exploration of tight shale plays: Society of Pe-
troleum Engineers Unconventional Resources Conference
and Exhibition-Asia Pacific, Brisbane, Queensland, Aus-
tralia, November 11–13, 2013, SPE-167048-MS, 13 p.
Popielski, A. C., Z. Heidari, and C. Torres-Verdı́n, 2012, Logs
in hydrocarbon-bearing shale: Society of Petroleum En-
gineers Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, Texas, October 8–10, 2012, SPE-159255-
MS, 19 p.
Prasad, M., M. Kopycinska, U. Rabe, and W. Arnold, 2002,
Measurement of Young’s modulus of clay minerals
using atomic force acoustic microscopy: Geophysical
Research Letters, v. 29, no. 8, p. 13-1–13-4, doi:10.1029
/2001GL014054.
Saneifar, M., A. Aranibar, and Z. Heidari, 2014, Rock
classification in the Haynesville shale based on pet-
rophysical and elastic properties estimated from well
logs: Interpretation, v. 3, no. 1, p. SA65–SA75, doi:
10.1190/INT-2013-0198.1.
Schmoker, J. W., 1979, Determination of organic content of
Appalachian Devonian shales from formation-density
logs: AAPG Bulletin, v. 63, no. 9, p. 1504–1509, doi:
10.1306/2F9185D1-16CE-11D7-8645000102C1865D.
Sone, H., and M. D. Zoback, 2013, Mechanical properties
of shale-gas reservoir rocks—Part 1: Static and dynamic
elastic properties and anisotropy: Geophysics, v. 78, no. 5,
p. D381–D392, doi:10.1190/geo2013-0050.1.
Stoneburner, R. K., 2017, The Eagle Ford shale field in the
Gulf Coast basin of south Texas, U.S.A.: A “perfect”
unconventional giant oil field, in R. K. Merrill and
C. A. Sternbach, eds., Giant fields of the decade 2000–
2010: AAPG Memoir 113, p. 121–140, doi:10.1306
/13572003M1133682.
Suarez-Rivera, R., J. Burghardt, E. Edelman, and S. Stanchits,
2013, Geomechanics considerations for hydraulic frac-
ture productivity: American Rock Mechanics Association
47th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium,
 San Francisco, California, June 23–26, 2013, ARMA-13-
666, 9 p.
Suarez-Rivera, R., B. Conner, J. Kieschnick, and S. Green,
2006, Hydraulic fracturing experiments help under-
standing fracture branching on tight gas shales: American
Rock Mechanics Association 41st US Symposium on
Rock Mechanics, Golden, Colorado, June 17–21, 2006,
ARMA/USRMS-06-1130, 7 p.
Suarez-Rivera, R., C. Deenadayalu, M. Chertov, R. N. Hartanto,
P. Gathogo, and R. Kunjir, 2011, Improving horizontal
completions on heterogeneous tight-shales: Society of Pe-
troleum Engineers Canadian Unconventional Resources
Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, November 15–17,
2011, SPE-146998-MS, 21 p.
Sun, X., T. Zhang, Y. Sun, K. T. Milliken, and D. Sun, 2016,
Geochemical evidence of organic matter source input
and depositional environments in the lower and upper
Eagle Ford Formation, south Texas: Organic Geochem-
istry, v. 98, p. 66–81, doi:10.1016/j.orggeochem.2016.05.018.
Tribovillard, N., T. J. Algeo, T. Lyons, and A. Riboulleau,
2006, Trace metals as paleoredox and paleoproductivity
proxies: An update: Chemical Geology, v. 232, no. 1–2,
p. 12–32, doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2006.02.012.
Vanorio, T., M. Prasad, and A. Nur, 2003, Elastic proper-
ties of dry clay mineral aggregates, suspensions and
sandstones: Geophysical Journal International, v. 155, no. 1,
p. 319–326, doi:10.1046/j.1365-246X.2003.02046.x.
Wang, G., and T. R. Carr, 2013, Organic-rich Marcellus Shale
lithofacies modeling and distribution pattern analysis in
the Appalachian Basin: AAPG Bulletin, v. 97, no. 12,
p. 2173–2205, doi:10.1306/05141312135.
Ward, J. H. Jr., 1963, Hierarchical grouping to optimize an
objective function: Journal of the American Statistical
Association, v. 58, no. 301, p. 236–244, doi:10.1080
/01621459.1963.10500845.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-pdf/105/7/1357/5347821/bltn16520.pdf
by Ovidiu Gheorghe Pinca
on 10 February 2023
Wehner, M. P., R. D. Gardner, M. C. Pope, and A. D. Donovan,
2017, The Eagle Ford Group returns to Big Bend National
Park, Brewster County: GCAGS Journal, v. 6, p. 161–176.
Wehner, M. P., M. M. Tice, M. C. Pope, R. Gardner,
A. D. Donovan, and T. S. Staerker, 2015, Anoxic,
storm dominated inner carbonate ramp deposition of
Lower Eagle Ford Formation, West Texas: Society of
Petroleum Engineers/AAPG/Society of Exploration Geo-
physicists Third Unconventional Resources Technology
Conference, San Antonio, Texas, July 22–25, 2015,
URTEC-2154667-MS, 16 p.
Wilde, P., T. W. Lyons, and M. S. Quinby-Hunt, 2004,
Organic carbon proxies in black shales: Molybdenum:
Chemical Geology, v. 206, no. 3–4, p. 167–176, doi:
10.1016/j.chemgeo.2003.12.005.
Wright, A. M., D. Spain, and K. Ratcliffe, 2010, Application
of inorganic whole rock geochemistry to shale resource
plays: Society of Petroleum Engineers Canadian Un-
conventional Resources and International Petroleum
Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, October 19–21,
2010, SPE-137946-MS, 18 p.
Yang, A., G. Firdaus, and Z. Heidari, 2016, Electrical resistivity
and chemical properties of kerogen isolated from organic-rich
mudrocks: Geophysics, v. 81, no. 6, p. D643–D655, doi:
10.1190/geo2016-0071.1.
Zhou, J., M. Chen, Y. Jin, and G. Q. Zhang, 2008, Analysis of
fracture propagation behavior and fracture geometry using
a tri-axial fracturing system in naturally fractured reser-
voirs: International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Min-
ing Sciences, v. 45, no. 7, p. 1143–1152, doi:10.1016
/j.ijrmms.2008.01.001.
Zumberge, J., H. Illich, and L. Waite, 2016, Petroleum geo-
chemistry of the Cenomanian–Turonian Eagle Ford oils
of south Texas, in J. A. Breyer, ed., The Eagle Ford Shale:
A renaissance in U.S. oil production: AAPG Memoir 110,
p. 135–165, doi:10.1306/13541960M110449.
AMIN ET AL. 1381