Using pyrolysis, SEM XRF and well logging measurements for the petroleum prospectivity of shale formations with the Marcellus formation (USA) as an example

UDK: 553.98
DOI: 10.24887/0028-2448-2021-1-28-31
Key words: pyrolysis, geochemical characteristics, unconventional reservoir, hydrocarbon-generating potential, kerogen
Authors: A. Maende (Wildcat Technologies LLC, USA, Humble), D. Weldon (Wildcat Technologies LLC, USA, Humble), M.N. Bolshakov (Oil and Gas Research Institute of RAS, RF, Moscow), A.D. Zakharov (FIANUM LLC, RF, Moscow)

The work objective was an analysis for the petroleum prospectivity of a core from the Marcellus Formation of Western Pennsylvania, USA. In accordance with the investigation results, sample groups were delineated based on TOC (Total Organic Carbon) and total hydrocarbon content measurements of the analyzed core and the most prospective interval for further development was marked out. Core analysis on a Marcellus TST sequence overlain by undetermined sequence Marcellus core was done using pyrolysis and SEM XRF measurements together with GR (Gamma Ray), ChemoGR (calculated from potassium, thorium and uranium), Porosity and PHIE (Effective Porosity) logging. Oil saturation was measured using both Classical Pyrolysis and HAWK-PAM methods. HAWK Petroleum Assessment Method is advanced multiramp/multizone pyrolysis method that utilizes five zones using multiple ramp and isotherm routines assigned during a single sample analysis. Such program is utilized to generate five petroleum peaks – four on oil fractions and one on kerogen. Based on the aforementioned analyses, it was evident that the sweet spot for petroleum prospectivity in the analyzed Marcellus Formation core is the 1940,75–1942,95 m. The efficiency of the HAWK-PAM pyrolysis method is shown for determination of the sweet spot intervals that is particularly important for the development of hard-to-recover unconventional reservoirs like the Marcellus formation in USA or the Bazhenov formation in Russia.

References

1. Dow W.G., How plant and animal remains become oil and gas: A geochemical perspective, AAPG Search and Discovery, Article no. 40830, 2011, URL: http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2011/40830dow/ndx_dow.pdf?q=%2BauthorStrip%3Adow+-isMeet...

2. Jarvie D.M, Baker D.R., Application of the Rock-Eval III oil show analyzer to the study of gaseous hydrocarbons in an Oklahoma gas well: 187th ACS National Meeting, St. Louis, Missouri, April 8–13, 1984, URL: http://wwgeochem.com/references/JarvieandBaker1984 ApplicationofRock-Evalforfindingbypassedpayzones.pdf

3. Jarvie D.M., Shale resource systems for oil and gas. Part 1. Shale-gas resource systems, In: Shale reservoirs. Giant resources for the 21st century: edited by Breyer J.A, AAPG Memoir 97, 2012, pp. 69–87.

4. Jarvie D.M., Shale resource systems for oil and gas. Part 2. Shale-oil resource systems, In: Shale reservoirs. Giant resources for the 21st century: edited by Breyer J.A, AAPG Memoir 97, 2012, pp. 89–119.

5. Peters K.E., Guidelines for evaluating petroleum source rock using programmed pyrolysis, AAPG Bull., 1986, V. 70, no. 3, pp. 318–329.

6. Loucks R.G., Reed R.M., Ruppel S.C., Hammes U., Spectrum of pore types and networks in Mudrocks and a descriptive classification for matrix-related mudrock pores, AAPG Bull., 2012, V. 96, no. 6, p. 1071–1098.

7. Buller D., Hughes S.N., Market J. et al., Petrophysical evaluation for enhancing hydraulic stimulation in horizontal shale gas wells, SPE-132990-MS, 2010.

8. Jarvie D.M., Unconventional shale-gas systems: The Mississippian Barnett Shale of north-central Texas as one model for thermogenetic shale-gas assessment, AAPG Bull., 2007, V. 91, no. 4, pp. 475–499.

The work objective was an analysis for the petroleum prospectivity of a core from the Marcellus Formation of Western Pennsylvania, USA. In accordance with the investigation results, sample groups were delineated based on TOC (Total Organic Carbon) and total hydrocarbon content measurements of the analyzed core and the most prospective interval for further development was marked out. Core analysis on a Marcellus TST sequence overlain by undetermined sequence Marcellus core was done using pyrolysis and SEM XRF measurements together with GR (Gamma Ray), ChemoGR (calculated from potassium, thorium and uranium), Porosity and PHIE (Effective Porosity) logging. Oil saturation was measured using both Classical Pyrolysis and HAWK-PAM methods. HAWK Petroleum Assessment Method is advanced multiramp/multizone pyrolysis method that utilizes five zones using multiple ramp and isotherm routines assigned during a single sample analysis. Such program is utilized to generate five petroleum peaks – four on oil fractions and one on kerogen. Based on the aforementioned analyses, it was evident that the sweet spot for petroleum prospectivity in the analyzed Marcellus Formation core is the 1940,75–1942,95 m. The efficiency of the HAWK-PAM pyrolysis method is shown for determination of the sweet spot intervals that is particularly important for the development of hard-to-recover unconventional reservoirs like the Marcellus formation in USA or the Bazhenov formation in Russia.

References

1. Dow W.G., How plant and animal remains become oil and gas: A geochemical perspective, AAPG Search and Discovery, Article no. 40830, 2011, URL: http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2011/40830dow/ndx_dow.pdf?q=%2BauthorStrip%3Adow+-isMeet...

2. Jarvie D.M, Baker D.R., Application of the Rock-Eval III oil show analyzer to the study of gaseous hydrocarbons in an Oklahoma gas well: 187th ACS National Meeting, St. Louis, Missouri, April 8–13, 1984, URL: http://wwgeochem.com/references/JarvieandBaker1984 ApplicationofRock-Evalforfindingbypassedpayzones.pdf

3. Jarvie D.M., Shale resource systems for oil and gas. Part 1. Shale-gas resource systems, In: Shale reservoirs. Giant resources for the 21st century: edited by Breyer J.A, AAPG Memoir 97, 2012, pp. 69–87.

4. Jarvie D.M., Shale resource systems for oil and gas. Part 2. Shale-oil resource systems, In: Shale reservoirs. Giant resources for the 21st century: edited by Breyer J.A, AAPG Memoir 97, 2012, pp. 89–119.

5. Peters K.E., Guidelines for evaluating petroleum source rock using programmed pyrolysis, AAPG Bull., 1986, V. 70, no. 3, pp. 318–329.

6. Loucks R.G., Reed R.M., Ruppel S.C., Hammes U., Spectrum of pore types and networks in Mudrocks and a descriptive classification for matrix-related mudrock pores, AAPG Bull., 2012, V. 96, no. 6, p. 1071–1098.

7. Buller D., Hughes S.N., Market J. et al., Petrophysical evaluation for enhancing hydraulic stimulation in horizontal shale gas wells, SPE-132990-MS, 2010.

8. Jarvie D.M., Unconventional shale-gas systems: The Mississippian Barnett Shale of north-central Texas as one model for thermogenetic shale-gas assessment, AAPG Bull., 2007, V. 91, no. 4, pp. 475–499.


Attention!
To buy the complete text of article (a format - PDF) or to read the material which is in open access only the authorized visitors of the website can. .

Mobile applications

Read our magazine on mobile devices

Загрузить в Google play

Press Releases

11.10.2021
07.10.2021
29.09.2021
Конкурс на соискание молодежной премии имени академика И.М. Губкина