SPE 150961

Petrophysical Parameters Evaluation in Unconventional Reservoirs by Well

Logging and Mud Logging Data Interactive Correlation Method
Hrvoje Jurčić, INA Plc, Zoran Čogelja, SPE, INA Plc, Srećko Maretić INA Plc (retired in 2011)

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/EAGE European Unconventional Resources Conference and Exhibition held in Vienna, Austria, 20-22 March 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The idea and interest of studying the unconventional hydrocarbon reservoirs in the Panonian Basin System, abbr. PBS, (the
Drava, Mura and Zala Depressions) are achieved by defining the joint research project carried out by the multidisciplinary
team of MOL and INA petroleum companies. This analysis is performed in the Croatian part of the Panonian Basin System
(CPBS). Eight areas with potential existence of unconventional reservoirs were examined with focus on Tight Gas Sands and
Gas Shales.
The primary object in this project stage is the estimation of possible unconventional reserves of gas (or Original Gas in Place,
abbr. OGIP). Reserves are defined by area and reservoir porosity, saturation and net pay. They are usually estimated from
well logging data and core laboratory and hydrodynamic data. Some difficulties and inabilities of accurate, i.e. professionally
acceptable reservoir evaluation, were noticed. The reason is inadequate or incomplete well logging suite and inadequate
formation evaluation work flow. Therefore, evaluation concepts from unconventional reservoirs presented in North American
petroleum provinces could not be directly applied in our case. It was inevitable to use other data source, especially the Mud
Logging Data to quantify net pay and qualify saturation. The rate of penetration, abbr. ROP, gas indications while drilling,
the presence of hydrocarbon in rock samples, fracture systems on cores, inflows, eruptions and mud losses as well as the
interpretation of overpressure using D exponent, abbr. Dcs method, significantly facilitated the evaluation of necessary
parameters.
It is crucial to improve economics of hydrocarbon production from any basin through operational efficiency, well
productivity as well as new analytical models. Here presented evaluation method of potential hydrocarbon reserves is
applicable in any similar case. It provides a highly acceptable professional credibility and can be very useful in situations
with incomplete and inadequate Well Logging Suite facilitating identification and categorization of unconventional
reservoirs.

Introduction

The last two decades have witnessed a growing interest in low permeability reservoirs of untypical lithology named
unconventional reservoirs. The definition of unconventional reservoir system given by Sondergeld (2010) is hydrocarbon
reservoir with complex geological and petrophysical systems as well as heterogeneities. The most demanding issue is to
achieve the economical production from such reservoirs. The oil industry has introduced specialized and complex
technologies of exploiting unconventional hydrocarbon reservoirs.
The definition of unconventional hydrocarbon reservoirs has been adopted from the NPC (2006). According to their findings,
the unconventional reservoirs differ fundamentally from the conventional ones in terms of profitability that cannot be
achieved using conventional methods. There is a requirement of special exploration and development procedures, including
extensive stimulating procedures and reservoir treatments and the introduction of new technologies into the production
process.
There are seven types of unconventional reservoirs listed in the literature: gas in tight sands (low porosity), gas in shales (or
similar pelitic sediments), oil in shales, oil in low permeable reservoirs, heavy oil, coalbed methane, gas hydrates.
The criteria for unconventional hydrocarbon reservoirs are identical to their lithological, reservoir and production
characteristics (Naik 2003):
2 SPE 150961

• low permeability of untypical reservoir lithology

• overpressure or extensive overpressure
• gas saturation and/or light oil condensate
• absence of water in the production process
The implementation of the idea about exploring the unconventional hydrocarbon reservoirs in the PBS (Drava, Mura and
Zala basins) has been achieved through INA and MOL joint project. Eight areas of possible unconventional reservoirs were
identified in the CPBS, where 38 deep wells were analyzed. Tight Gas Sands (TGS) and Gas Shales (GS) were identified as
unconventional reservoirs in lower to middle Miocene age at the depths of more than 3000 m (Fig. 1). The thickness of
interesting sequences varies between 200 and 600 m. Gases are predominantly wet with significant content of higher
hydrocarbons, classified as thermogenic condensate associated gases or over pressured condensate gases.

Fig. 1: Identified unconventional reservoirs (TGS and GS) in Croatian part of Panonian basin with position of wells A and B

One of the project basic objectives was to estimate the potential reservoirs of the area explored, i.e. to make an evaluation of
the reservoir parameters (porosity, saturation, net pay).
Well logging data of the area observed are of an earlier date, mostly incomplete and therefore unreliable for the reservoir
parameter evaluation (porosity and saturation). The concept of calculating porosity in unconventional reservoirs as gas shales
is even more complicated due to the presence of low density organic material and variable mineralogy and fluids (Sondergeld
et al. 2010.). Therefore, all available data beside well logging data were used for the evaluation, primarily mud logging
results. Such an interdisciplinary approach previously described by Cambell and Truman (1986), Blanc (2003) and Carugo
(2006) helped us to develop method called Interactive Correlation between Well Logging and Mud Logging Data, abbr.
ICWL-ML. We believe this approach to the reservoir parameters evaluation provides a more reliable, accurate and
professionally more acceptable evaluation results.

Theory

The study of unconventional reservoirs in the region of Drava and Mura Depressions required a comprehensive and
multidisciplinary approach with a simultaneous organization of data, interpretations, statements and conclusions into a
systematic whole.
Shale volume is key factor of petrophysical parameters evaluation in unconventional reservoirs. Although shale rocks are
composed of clay minerals and grains of quartz and very fine grained calcite, shale in this case refers to the total volume of
clay minerals and clay bound water (abbr. CBW), the way Crain (2011) described it.
Gas shales contain adsorbed and free gas. Adsorbed gas is bound to fine granular particles and clay minerals, while free gas
is contained in the intergranular porosity of particles bigger than silt and mostly of quartz and/or carbonate composition.
Adsorbed gas volume is equal to the proportion of the organic component in the shale; free gas volume is proportional to the
effective porosity or gas saturation in the pores (Crain 2011).
Tight gas sands are dominantly saturated with dry gas. They are low permeability sandstones with various fractions of clay
and/or marl. The reservoir series in CPBS mostly includes numerous sandstone beds of various thicknesses. In order to
achieve the optimal production it requires adequate drilling fluid parameters, production technology and possibly reservoir
stimulations. Usually, the individual sandstone bed thickness does not exceed several tens of meters, while the formation
thickness can achieve several hundred meters.
SPE 150961 3

Data obtained from well logging, mud logging, well testing and laboratory analyses are presented by the Composite Log. The
following curves were taken from Well Logging data: resistivity logs, (RS, RD, R16 and R64), natural radioactivity (Gamma
Ray - GR), spontaneous potential (SP), Caliper (CAL), Density Log (DEN), Neutron Porosity Log (NEU) and
Acoustic/Sonic Log (AC/BHC).
Mud Logging data comprise the following values: rate of penetration (ROP), Total Gas (NG, BG, CG, TG), the
determination of hydrocarbon presence in drilled rock cuttings from drilling fluid (UV, CHCI3), eruption, inflow and mud
losses while drilling, laboratory analyses and core analyses (lithology, porosity, fractures, slickenside, discontinuity planes,
stratigraphy).
The graphic interpretations of compaction trend line together with pressures measured by Drill Steam Test (DST), Well Tests
(WT) and Dcs data have defined the areas of overpressure and identified the „intervals of interest“. In the following step the
reservoirs were classified into categories and well logging analyses were made, together with bench mark logging
correlations, and lithofacies interpretations.
The rate of penetration (ROP) is one of the most important parameters of Mud Logging data. It is simultaneous to the events
at the bottomhole, and practical benefit for the wellsite geologist while drilling (correlation and geological project
requirements complying). Provided the drilling regime parameters are constant, ROP represents the function of the lithology
drillability and its reservoir characteristics (Mouchet and Mitchell 1989). Therefore, ROP enables the correlation, lithology
interpretation, as well as the evaluation of reservoir characteristics (net pay, net/gross relation).
Relative gas concentration in mud (Total gas in mud) together with UV and CHC13 manifestations, indicate formation
(reservoir) saturation. Total gas in mud is classified as follows:
NG – new gas. The first show of gas in the drilling fluid. Mostly connected to increased ROP, lithological change and
reservoir appearance. Along with the UV and CHC13 manifestations, NG is the basic reservoir saturation indicator.
BG – background gas. Constant or variable gas content in the mud. Partly not degassed while mud circulation („recirculating
gas“), as well as the gas from the drilled rock volume. Together with ROP and CG it is one of the overpressure indicators.
TG – trip gas, the so called “Gas plug” appears after drilling stopped and changing the bit or other drilling tools maneuver.
CG – connection gas. Gas show while pipe connection. Together with BG it is one of the indicators of overpressure
manifestation.
ROP in correlation with gas show (NG, BG) enables a quality assessment of the reservoir characteristics and of the formation
or reservoir saturation, especially in overpressured lithologies (Mouchet and Mitchell 1989). They are therefore inevitable in
the formation evaluation procedure, particularly for the estimation of reservoir parameters in unconventional reservoirs
(especially for the Gas Shales evaluation).
Shale volume in the reservoir has a direct effect on evaluated effective porosity. Reservoir shale volume is evaluated by GR
or SP logging curves. The objective of the evaluation is to identify the cleanest reservoir interval, since non-reservoir
lithologies (marl, clay and shale) reduce the communication between the reservoir porosity.
Reservoir porosity defines the reservoir volume and estimated hydrocarbon reserves. The reservoir porosity evaluation is
made by of density, neutron and acoustic (CDL/CNL/BHC) well logging, using Dual Porosity Model. At the same time the
knowledge of lithology is essential. Core porosity laboratory analyses are extremely important, not only for data accuracy but
also for the correlation and calibration standard of the well logging estimated data.
During the unconventional reservoir evaluation procedure described here, the most questionable and challenging parameters
were reservoir thickness and saturation. The interactive method of correlation between Well Logging and Mud Logging data
gave more credibility and professional competence to the estimated results, particularly in the Gas Shales evaluation.

Applied methods

The suggested method ICWL-ML data has been applied in formation evaluation process in Well A and Well B (Fig. 2 and 3).
Presented part of the Composite Log that comprises the well logging and mud logging data (WL curves, ROP and Total Gas).
Therefore, particular significance is given to the correlation between new gases show, increased ROP interval and adequate
manifestations on Well Logging curves (SP, Rt, GR, AC, and CAL).
4 SPE 150961

Fig. 2: Case study based on well A. Red lines mark good correlation of presented data. In interpretation of Tight Gas Sands (X100 – X220 m): well
logging data were used to define permeable zones (SP), lithologic unit (GR, low permeability quartz sandstone and marl) and estimate total porosity (AC,
DEN, NEU, table 1 - 2). Increasing of ROP defined net pay in correlation with GR and NG, free gas saturation (4 – 8.8 %) estimated from NG and adsorbed
gas saturation (0.5 – 4%) from BG.
Interpretation of Gas Shales (X220 – X420 m): lithologic composition defined by core description and rock samples as dark gray, black clayly shale.
Laboratory rock analyses results gave an average TOC 0.8%. Effective porosity values estimated from AC, DEN and NEU in intervals with NG and low GR.
Net pay, free gas and adsorbed gas (prevailing saturation) were evaluated using ICWL-ML method. Doubtful net pay evaluation especially in interval X368
– X420 m due to new bit and overpressure.
SPE 150961 5

Fig. 3: Case study based on well B. Red lines mark good correlation of presented data. In interpretation of Gas Shale (X420 – X880 m): well logging data
were used to define permeable zones (SP – shape indicating fracture porosity), lithologic unit (GR, quartz, carbonate, clay), estimate total porosity (AC,
DEN, NEU, table 3 - 4) and fracture zones (AC). Increasing of ROP defined net pay in correlation with GR and NG, free gas saturation (100 %) estimated
from NG and adsorbed gas saturation (90 – 100 %) from BG. Lithologic composition defined by core description and rock samples as tectonized and
naturally fractured dark gray, black clayly shale with calcite veins. Laboratory rock analyses results gave an average TOC 0.8%. Effective porosity values
estimated from AC, DEN and NEU in intervals with NG and low GR. Net pay, free gas and adsorbed gas were evaluated using ICWL-ML method.
Overpressure defined due to DST data, pressure gradient Gp = 1.5 – 2.2 bars/10 m.

Reservoir net pay evaluation criteria can be described in three theoretically (simplified) cases of correlation between ROP
and Total Gas (Fig. 4).
6 SPE 150961

Fig 4: Simplified cases of correlation between ROP and Total Gas curve described in 1st – 3rd example

1st example (net pay#1): Very good correlation between increasing of ROP and New Gas appearance exists. Increased ROP
interval is equal to NG duration suggesting reservoir net pay (ROP) and reservoir saturation (NG). NG chromatographic
composition and experiment with UV light, using CHCl3 solvent, showed on hydrocarbon saturation (gas, oil and
condensate). In gas shale formation described example can be interpreted as free gas. This evaluation criterion has been
applied in both types of unconventional reservoirs.
2nd example (net pay#2): There is a good correlation between increasing of ROP and Total Gas which include NG and BG
appearance in gas shales. Reservoir net pay can be estimated due to increasing of ROP and only NG duration. This example
was found in both lithological types of unconventional reservoirs. Proper determination of gas appearance is of extreme
importance (NG or BG).
3rd example (net pay#3): High gas in mud (high BG) very often masks gas determination. These appearances in shale, marl,
silt indicate the overpressure existence (Mouchet and Mitchell 1989). In Gas Shales the gas show can came from adsorbed
gas. However, if ROP increasing interval match with BG increasing (amplitude variations), it can be indication of free gas
saturated naturally fractured interval of Gas Shales. The estimated net pay is very questionable. The same criterion as
described in 1st example is suggested in Gas Shales formation evaluation.

Interpretation and results

The results of parameter evaluation are shown in tables 1-4. The data were obtained by using the three criteria, previously
described by theoretical examples and were compared by the results obtained by conventional estimation methods (CRA –
Complex Reservoir Analysis and GLOBAL - Well Log Analysis).
SPE 150961 7

well A, Tight Gas Sand formation

X100 – X220 m
CRA ICWL-ML
Φ
he he (1 st example) he (2 nd example)
Cut off criterion (%)
(m) (m) (m)

1. 5.6 – 6.4 157 – 132

32 48
2. 7.7 8.8
1. 5,4 – 6,3 49 – 39
7 11.5 – 12
2. 9.1 2.6
1. 3.0 – 4.3 108 – 53
no NG 29*
2. 2.1 6.0
1. 6.0 – 6.7 69 - 59
11 24
2. 8.6 20.4

Table 1: Evaluation results for petrophysical parameters (well A, TGS)

Cut off criteria were used in CRA analysis:
1. Φ>0,5 – 3%, Sw <100%
2. Φ>0,5 – 3%, Sw <85%
* datum obtained by ROP/BG correlation

Well A, Gas Shale formation

X220 – X500 m

CRA ICWL-ML
Φ he he (1 st example ) he (2 nd example )
Cut off criterion
(%) (m) (m) (m)
1. 4.6 – 5.5 47 - 36
4.5 14
2. 9.0 1.5

Table 2: Evaluation results for petrophysical parameters (well A, GS)

Cut off criteria used in CRA analysis:
1. Φ>0.5 – 3%, Sw <100%
2. Φ>0.5 – 3%, Sw <85%

In tables 1 and 2 results are shown for Tight Gas Sands and Gas Shale formations in the well A. Analyzed TGS formation,
interval of interest has been divided in four zones depending on gas shows. Data are organized to compare the results
obtained by two different methods. First method was conventional deterministic CRA (Complex Reservoir Analysis, Baker
Hughes) method, with results shown in two left columns of tables 1 and 2. The second ICWL-ML method, gave the results
presented in two right columns of same tables. Presented porosity is average total porosity value obtained only by the CRA
analysis. Second parameter in evaluation was net pay. In CRA analysis we used two cut off criteria described with first (Φ>
0.5 – 3%, Sw < 100 %) and second (Φ> 0.5 – 3%, Sw < 85 %) criteria. Cut off values are chosen due to experience in local
formation evaluation.
To obtain the net pay by ICWL-ML method we applied two criteria, independent from criteria used in CRA method. First
criterion was ROP/NG; meaning simultaneous appearances of new gas and ROP increasing. Second criterion was
ROP/NG/BG, similar to previous one but including appearances of BG.

well B, Tight Gas Sand formation

X000 – X420 m
he (1 st example) he (2 nd example) Φ AC Φ core k core
(m) (m) (%) (%) (md)

5,3 (avg)
65 112 4.9 0.14
20 (frac)

Table 3: Evaluation results for petrophysical parameters (well B, TGS)

Table 3 presents Tight Gas Sands formation in the well B. Lack of well logging data necessary for CRA evaluation
implicated evaluation of porosity derived from Schlumberger’s Log Charts. Matrix and fracture’s porosity existed. Matrix
8 SPE 150961

porosity was finally calibrated by laboratory analysis data. Values of effective thickness were estimated by previously
explained ICWL-ML method.

well B, Gas Shale formation

X420 – X880 m
GLOBAL analysis
ICWL-ML
(Schlumberger)
Φ he he (1 st example) he (2 nd example)
(%) (m) (m) (m)
2 – 7,5 118
90 110
9.2 (frac) 21 (frac)
Table 4. Evaluation results for petrophysical parameters (well B, GS)
Cut off criteria used in the GLOBAL analysis:
Φ>0.5 – 5%, Sw <80%

Gas Shale from the well B is presented in table 4. Results were obtained by GLOBAL analysis (Schlumberger) and ICWL-
ML method. GLOBAL analysis recognized matrix and naturally fractured intervals with adequate effective thickness given in
two left columns. The cut off criteria was chosen by service company as Φ > 0.5 – 5% and Sw < 80 %. Net pay evaluated by
ICWL-ML method is presented in two right columns.
Discussion

In the observed area, most of the wells were of an earlier date from 1950is to 1990is, without adequate well logging suite,
generally impossible to create a standard petrophysical evaluation model for unconventional reservoirs proposed by
Sondergeld (2010). The fact that additionally made situation difficult was impossibility of any additional activities in the
wells i.e. no reentry, perforation, logging in cased hole or testing were possible.
First step in estimation of petrophysical parameters was usage of conventional deterministic models such as CRA analyses in
eXpress software (Baker Hughes) or GLOBAL analysis (Schlumberger). Inadequate evaluation model resulted in unreliable
saturation and effective thickness results in possible unconventional reservoirs, regarding models were influenced by low
porosity (< 2 %), very low permeability (< 0.1 md) and overpressure (> 1 bar/10 m). New approach to formation evaluation
had to be considered and ICWL-ML method was created. This is the reason of significant difference in net pay results
obtained by two methods.
Conclusion

The goal was to estimate possible total hydrocarbon reserves in potential unconventional reservoirs in the CPBS. The
parameters used to calculate the volume and reserves were sporosity, saturation and reservoir net pay evaluated by Well Log
Analysis. Applied interpretation programs were limited by incomplete data obtained from Well Logging suite and drilling
(borehole diameter, drilling fluids, etc). There was need for different approach to Mud Logging evaluation. Gas shows, the
presence of hydrocarbons in cuttings, fracture systems, inflows, eruptions, drilling fluid losses and overpressure highly
influenced the reservoir evaluation. We believe that multidisciplinary approach to such complex issue as formation
evaluation of unconventional reservoirs resulted by method that gave us more reliable results. Therefore, in situations where
no adequate logging suite, such as nuclear magnetic, borehole imagers, geochemistry or full wave sonic logs exists, the
results obtained by ICWL-ML method represents the best way to evaluate formations.
Acknowledgements

The authors thank INA Plc management for permission to publish this work and support us in our efforts, especially Mr.
Miro Đureković and Mr. Ninoslav Trgovec Greif.
We also would like to thank Dr. Tomislav Malvić for his editorial comments and contributions as well as all members of the
team lead by Mr. Dubravko Bobić, Mr. Arso Putniković and Mr. Stjepan Trogrlić.
Special thank goes to Mr. Srećko Maretić for all his documented and undocumented work and support.
SPE 150961 9

References

1. Blanc et al., “Reducing Uncertainties In Formation Evaluation Through Innovative Mud Logging Techniques”, SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, October 5 – 8, 2003
2. Cambell and Truman, “Formation Evaluation in the Devonian Shale”, SPE Unconventional Gas Technology
Symposium, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, May 18 – 21 1986
3. Carugo et al., “Unconventional Ways to Support Formation Evaluation in Fractured Reservoir Using Mudlogging
Data”, GEO 2006 Middle East Conference and Exhibition, Manama, Bahrain, March 27 – 29, 2006
4. Crain, E., R., “Crain’s Petrophysical Handbook”, http://www.spec2000.net, (last checked date 20. 1. 2012.)
5. Mouchet and Mitchell, “Abnormal pressures while drilling” Manuels techniqueself aquitaine 2, Elf Aquitaine Edition,
Boussens, 1989
6. Naik, G., C., “Tight Gas Reservoirs – An Unconventional Natural Energy Source for the Future”,
http://www.sublettewyo.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=358 (last checked date 20. 1. 2012), 2003
7. NPC - National Petroleum Council, “Working Document of the NPC Global Oil & Gas Study”, Topic Paper # 29
Unconventional Gas, 5. page, 2006
8. Sondergeld et al., “Petrophysical Considerations in Evaluating and Producing Shale Gas Resources”, SPE
Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, February 23 – 25, 2010
9. INA Plc. Technical documentation.