Petrophysical Characterization of the

Marcellus & Other Gas Shales

Daniel J. Soeder, NETL, Morgantown, WV
Presentation for PTTC/DOE/RSPEA Gas Shales Workshop, 28 Sep. 2011
AAPG Eastern Section Meeting, Arlington, Virginia

Presentation Identifier (Title or Location), Month 00, 2008

 Petrophysics
• Physical properties of rocks
• Wireline well log measurements
– radioactivity, density, conductivity, sonic velocity
– links between well logs and geology
• Measurement of reservoir rock and fluid transport
properties (core analysis)
– porosity, pore volume compressibility, capillary entry
pressure, pore size distribution
– permeability/relative permeability, flowpath aperture,
flowpath tortuosity, reaction to stress
– links between core analysis and petrography
– classically designed for conventional reservoirs;
added challenge in shale.
2
 Gas Shale Geology
 Sedimentary rock formed from mud

 Composed of fine-grained material: clay,

quartz, organic matter, and other minerals.

 Clay-rich shales are fissile: split into thin sheets

 Shale can be silty or calcareous, and grade into

other lithologies (siltstone/limestone)

 Shale types: organic-rich (black) and organic

lean (gray or red)

 Shale porosity ~ 10%, permeability is very low.

Pore spaces between grains are small.

 Gas occurs in fractures, in pores and adsorbed

or dissolved onto organic materials and clays.
3
 Marcellus Shale in Hanson Quarry, NY

Oatka Creek Member

Cherry Valley LS

Union Springs Member

4
WV 6 7355.2 Organic-rich black shale
100 µm

5
 10 µm

Parallel clay flakes

Microfracture

Woody
organic

Pyrite >

6
 Nanoporosity in Shale

7
 Petrophysics of Shale
• Shale grain size is very small: silt sized quartz grains,
clay flakes, organic matter. Small grains = small pores
• Pores in shale are flat, slot-like structures, supported
by asperities or surface roughness, versus triangular
pores supported by round grains.
• Small pores are easily plugged by liquids held under
high capillary pressures

8
 Pore Geometry and Drawdown Stress
• The linear shape of slot pores is more strongly
affected by narrowing under stress than
triangular pores.
• Asperities in slot pores are easily crushed
during high net stress excursions, and do not
recover the pore shape, resulting in
hysteresis.
• Slot pore behavior under increased net stress:
– greater mean aperture (smaller pores closed)
– greater flowpath tortuosity (loss of inter-connectivity)
– result: lower permeability

9
 DOE Eastern Gas Shales Project 1976-1992

10
 EGSP Cored Well Locations
38 total, including 3 wells in the Antrim
Shale of the Michigan Basin, and one
well in the New Albany Shale of the
Illinois Basin

11
 Appalachian Basin Stratigraphy

12
 IGT Core Analysis 1982-89
• Institute of Gas Technology in Chicago (now GTI) had a
contract to perform tight sand core analyses for DOE
Multiwell Experiment (MWX) in Colorado.
• A high-precision, steady-state gas permeameter and
porosimeter was developed for this work, called the
Computer Operated Rock Analysis Lab, or CORAL
• The CORAL used temperature control to produce a gas
reference pressure stable to ~1 part in 500,000
• Gas flow through cores was measured by differential
pressure build-up in calibrated downstream volumes
• Actual flow sensitivity was as low as 10-6 standard cm3
per second
• Pore volumes under net stress were measured using
Boyles Law to an accuracy of 0.01 cm3
13
 IGT Core Apparatus (CORAL)

14
 Permeability
• Henry Darcy: 19th Century French hydrologist defined the basic
parameters for water; some modifications needed for gas
• Flow is controlled by permeability of the porous medium, x-s area,
pressure drop, fluid viscosity and flowpath length:
Q = kA (ΔP/µ L); to solve for permeability: k = µ L (QA/ΔP)
In the lab, L and A are properties of the sample, µ is a property of the
measuring fluid, ΔP is controlled, and we measure Q.
• Akin to electrical conductivity, in that some materials allow fluids
to pass through more easily than others
– Ohm's law: I = U(1/R): current = voltage divided by resistance
• Basic permeability unit: darcy = 1 cp fluid flowing at 1 cm3/sec
under 1 atm ΔP per cm length, through a cross-section of 1 cm2
– millidarcy = 10-3 darcy: conventional oil & gas reservoirs
– microdarcy = 10-6 darcy: tight sands, coal, some shales
– nanodarcy = 10-9 darcy: some coals, many shales

15
 Pulse versus Steady State
• Joel Walls under Amos Nur at Stanford University developed a
pulse technique for low permeability rocks
– Stanford Rock Physics Project in 1982
– Used decay of pressure pulse to calculate permeability
– Fast, commercial technique, currently in use
• Phil Randolph at IGT stood by a modification to the steady
state technique for research purposes
– Temperature control gave stable reference pressure
– Adjustments to stress, fluid redistribution, adsorption and other
subtle phenomena could be measured over time
– Slow technique; days to weeks to collect data
• Side by side comparison for GRI showed similar performance
on dry rock
– Steady state more accurate for relative permeability to gas under
partial liquid saturations
– Pulse technique much faster
16
 IGT CORAL Operations

Modification of CORAL for Devonian shale analyses:

1) Reconfigured air circulation for better temperature stability
2) Improved digitizing resolution with new data logger
3) New temperature control algorithm to minimize overshooting
the desired setpoint.

17
 Shale Petrophysics in the 1980s
• Only 5 cores out of 38 EGSP wells penetrated to the
Marcellus Shale
• DOE funded EGSP core analysis at the Institute of
Gas Technology (now GTI) in Chicago 1982-84
• EGSP cores had deteriorated, leading to challenging
sample selection
• Samples analyzed were 7 Ohio Shale cores, and 1
Marcellus
– Ohio Shale contained oil; difficult gas measurements
– Marcellus Shale had strong sensitivity to net stress
– Marcellus had very strong adsorbed gas component
– Permeability of all shales very low, but measureable
• New analyses planned to follow up on earlier results
18
 EGSP WV-6 Well and Core (MERC#1)
Photographed in 2011

19
 Ohio Shale Gas Permeability

100 nanodarcies >

20
 Marcellus Shale Gas Permeability
• Gas slippage in tight rocks.
• Klinkenberg correction:
– K = k∞ x 1+b/P
– where b is the Klinkenberg
coefficient (slope)

• Effect of net stress: 2x net

stress = 2/3 reduction in
permeability (19.6 µd at 3000
psi net PC; 6 µd at 6000 psi net PC

• Derived parameters:
– Flowpath aperture
– Flowpath tortuosity
21
 Gas Pore Volume in Marcellus

22
 Gas Content of Marcellus Shale
1980 NPC estimates for shale: 0.1 to 0.6 scf
gas/ft3

1988: IGT core analysis: 26.5 SCF/ft3 at

3500 psi reservoir pressure; GIP= 3693
TCF; 10% recoverable = 369 TCF

2002: USGS Open-File Report 2006-1237:

Marcellus has 2 TCF of recoverable gas.

2008: Engelder and Lash: Marcellus has

500 TCF of GIP, with 50 TCF recoverable.

2009: Engelder revised this to 363 TCF

recoverable.

2011: USDOE - Energy Information

Administration using 410 TCF recoverable.
USGS estimate is 84 TCF recoverable.

23
 IGT Data - Circa 1988

24
 Marcellus Gas Production
• Mitchell Energy adapted new technology for
economic production of shale gas in the 1990s
– directional drilling, laterals & light sand fracs
– Barnett Shale in Ft. Worth Basin, Texas
• Range Resources, Renz #1 well, October
2004, Washington County, PA;
– Trenton-Black River Limestone original target
– recompleted vertically in Marcellus Shale
– light sand frac; IP 300 MCFD
• Range Resources, Gulla #9 well, 2005
– "Barnett" type - drilled horizontally
– slickwater frac completion; IP 4 MMCFD
• 3157 Marcellus Shale wells drilled in PA
between January 2008 and June 2011
• Energy value of U.S. natural gas may equal
twice the oil in Saudi Arabia.
25
 NETL Petrophysical Analyses
• Precision Petrophysical Analysis Laboratory (PPAL)
• Constructed in a lab at the Petroleum and Natural Gas
Engineering Department at West Virginia University
– Student access (esp. international students)
– PNGE expertise to analyze and model the data
– Facilities accessible for 24-hour operations
• Based on IGT's CORAL design, but smaller footprint
with improved sensor electronics, greater degree of
computer control, and only 2 coreholders instead of 4.
• Design capabilities of 10,000 psi confining pressure,
1500 psi pore pressure, and 30 psi differential pressure
– Flow differential pressure sensors 0.5 psid full scale
– Porosimetery differential sensor 0.5 psid; displacement volume
calibrated to 0.7 mL per turn, readable to ± 0.003 mL.
26
 PPAL under construction

27
 Coreholders

28
 Flow Measurement System

29
 Pore Volume Measurement

30
 Plug Samples

Samples obtained from Facies 2 (shaly limestone),

Facies 4 (noncalcareous black shale) and Facies 5
(silty gray shale) for initial comparisons.
31
 Lithofacies in the Marcellus Shale

Facies 1: gray, calcareous shale Facies 3: black, calcareous shale

Facies 2: shaly limestone

Walker-Milani, Margaret E., 2011, Outcrop lithostratigraphy and petrophysics of the Middle Devonian
Marcellus Shale in West Virginia and adjacent states: M.S. thesis, West Virginia University, July 2011.
32
 Lithofacies in the Marcellus Shale
Facies 4: black, non-calcareous shale Facies 5: dark gray, silty shale

< Facies 6: volcanic ash (Tioga)

33
 NETL Research Directions
• Forge links between physical rock behavior and geology (facies
and depositional environments)
– 3-D spatial variation of rock properties - EarthVision framework model
– link physical properties to geology through sedimentary lithofacies
– improved predictability of behavior
• Investigate net stress effects and hysteresis
– loss of gas production under drawdown
– ability to "re-inflate" shales in the future for CO2 sequestration
• Multiphase flow in shale
– pore scale interaction of gas, water and oil
– ability of shale to act as a caprock or seal
– effects of retrograde condensate
– gas potential in gray shales
• Behavior of different gases in black shale
– organics, clays and adsorption potential of CH4 versus CO2
– reaction of these gases to the presence of oil or water
– net stress, permeability and gas type
34
 Questions?

Daniel J. Soeder Websites for additional information:

USDOE/NETL
NETL Oil & Gas Technologies Reference Shelf (reports):
3610 Collins Ferry Road http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-
P.O. Box 880 gas/ReferenceShelf/index.html
Morgantown, WV 26507
(304) 285-5258 Society of Core Analysts: http://www.scaweb.org/
Daniel.Soeder@netl.doe.gov Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America
(RPSEA): http://www.rpsea.org/
http://www/netl.doe.gov
Marcellus Shale Coalition (industry site):
http://marcelluscoalition.org/

35