.

IPTC17186

Advanced Cuttings Analysis Improves Reservoir Characterization and

Reduces Operating Times in Shale Gas Drilling Project
C. Carugo, A. Malossi, P. Balossino, R. Galimberti, L. Gioacchini, F. Pingitore and E. Previde-Massara, Eni e&p,
and F. Rivolta, Geolog International

Copyright 2013, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Beijing, China, 26–28 March 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435

Abstract
Significant improvements in shale gas reservoir characterization have been recently obtained by means of detailed
geochemical and mineralogical analysis on cuttings and cores directly at wellsite using the combined application of different
technologies. These technologies include: X-ray diffractometry for mineralogy, X-ray fluorescence for rock chemical
(elemental) composition, TOC analysis for Total Organic Carbon measurement and Pyrolysis for source rock characterization
(Hydrogen Index, free oil content, Petroleum Potential & Maturity Index). The analyses, normally carried out in specialized
laboratories, have been performed while drilling into a field unit. Dedicated procedures were also defined in order to improve
the quality of the cuttings and to optimize the analyses timing to obtain near real time responses.
The first field application has been carried out within an exploratory campaign for a shale gas drilling project. The rig site
analyses provided in near real time complete geochemical/mineralogical log of the reservoir section. Wellsite analyses have
been afterwards validated by laboratories analyses repeated on the same samples, confirming the reliability and accuracy of the
rig site measurements.
The Advanced Real-Time Cutting Analysis provided a strong support to the drilling operations (selection of the coring point,
identification of sweet spot, etc.) resulting in significant time and cost savings in the well target phase and allowed for a
reliable quick Formation Evaluation by using the organic matter and mineralogy data to calibrate the wireline logs response.
The acquired data were also used to update the geochemical model utilized in the Petroleum System Model performed during
the pre-drilling phase for a better understanding of the reservoir during the ongoing exploratory campaign.

Introduction
Barnett Shale in the Fort Worth (TX) basin represents the precursor of all the shale gas reservoirs currently being evaluated or
exploited and it is considered worldwide as a model when assessing new shale prospects either for both technical and
economic aspects. In spite of almost 30 years of life, since a local independent drilled the first discovery well in the Barnett
Shale, still a lot of uncertainties remains and challenging situations are constantly experienced during the exploitation activity.
New Shale Gas Plays evaluation requires the accurate understanding of several parameters that are not generally considered
when drilling conventional exploratory wells. Conventional formation evaluation based primarily on logs data does not always
provide in the exploratory phase proper shale reservoir characterization. Logs response and petrophysical models need to be
calibrated through direct measurements coming from cuttings or core, carried out in specialized laboratories; this approach was
applied in the past by Eni to evaluate a potential shale gas reservoir in wells originally planned to discover hydrocarbon
bearing layers in conventional reservoir (Chelini et al., 2010).
This process generally requires several weeks which is not always compatible with the turnaround time of rig operation
decision or exploratory phase project constraints (e.g. license or lease expiration).
A proper and optimized data acquisition is consequently required on all the phases of a shale gas project in a back and forth
process with the objective of reducing operational cost and time to market.

Rigsite analysis on cuttings, routinely performed during drilling operations to furnish preliminary indications about the
lithological content of the drilled formation, can be improved with advanced analysis to provide additional information about
2 IPTC17186

the geochemical/mineralogical characteristics of the rocks, supporting a more robust formation evaluation and reservoir
characterisation also impacting on operational decision.
Already in the past , some attempt to export laboratories techniques to wellsite was done (Whittaker, 1991), but practical and
cost limitations at that time prevented their diffusion.
In the last years, new technologies have been developed by different Companies and Contractors to improve this aspect, in
relationship to different target of specific projects.
Field chemostratigraphy based on laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) has been applied at rigsite to analyse the
chemical (elemental) content of the cuttings on drilling rigs, also for shale gas project (Ratcliffe et al. 2001, Rickman et al.,
2008, Dix et al., 2010, Buller et al. 2010); novel pyrolytic methods have been developed to quantitatively assess reservoir
quality from residual hydrocarbon staining on drill cuttings and to assist with geosteering horizontal development wells (Jones
et al., 2007); Advanced Mud Logging system (AML), including several direct petrophysical measurements, have been tested
to provide quantitative real time measurements especially in case of tight formations (Loermans et al. 2011, Marsala et al.
2011); Spectral Gamma Ray measurement on cuttings have been utilised as an alternative to LWD (Alixant et al., 1999,
Loermans et al., 2011).
More recently, integrated wellsite geochemistry, including mud gas and cutting analysis, has been proposed to evaluate
unconventional reservoir in order to assist in well construction and smart completions (Tonner et al., 2012).

In the case of the new Eni Shale Gas project, focused on the evaluation of a shale play in a poorly explored area, it was
decided to apply a new in-house developed methodology, called Advanced Real-Time Cutting Analysis. The methodology is
based on the wellsite measurement of mineralogical and geochemical rock properties through sophisticated technologies, in
part available on the market and in part developed for the scope, provided by a surface logging contractor. It represents a step
in the direction of cost and time optimization providing a near real time shale characterization either to support operation
decision and to integrate and calibrate the logs response.
The Advanced Real-Time Cutting Analysis was proposed at the field site using a laboratory/unit where specific instruments
have been installed for X-ray diffractometry (mineralogy), X-ray fluorescence (rock chemical/elemental composition), TOC
analysis (direct Total Organic Carbon measurement) and Pyrolysis (source rock characterization - Hydrogen Index, free oil
content, Petroleum Potential & Maturity Index). The output of the measurements is a near real time
Mineralogical/Geochemical log of the entire shale sequence during drilling operation that resulted to be at first a powerful tool
in supporting operation decision (e.g. coring point identification and termination) and, subsequently, driving the petrophysical
model calibration.
Higher sampling rate analysis was applied on bottomhole cores in order to describe at smaller scale the reservoir heterogeneity
and have more check points for the logs interpretations.

Comparison of wellsite results with lab analyses demonstrate the reliability of field site results that, certainly, at the moment
cannot replace laboratories analysis, but can provide a valuable support in near real time operation decision and reservoir
characterization.

Use of geochemical and mineralogical analysis for shale reservoir characterization

Organic geochemistry
The organic geochemistry is a key factor to describe two aspects of the gas shale system: the potential for generating gas
(following the classic concept of source rock) and the capacity for storing gas (the “unconventional” reservoir).
The main geochemical parameters that can be used for the definition of potential gas shale are those describing the quantity
and quality of the organic matter in the rock and those relate to the thermal maturity.
The Total Organic Carbon (TOC) content represents the measurement of the amount of organic matter for unit of weight of
rock and it is important to evaluate the potentiality for both gas generation and storage (adsorption). The formations classified
as Shale Gas, have generally an average TOC content higher than 2 percent.
The quality of the organic matter (kerogen type) is also important because it affects the type of hydrocarbons generated by the
shale. It is measured by pyrolysis method like RockEval and mainly described by the Hydrogen Index (HI); most of the well
known gas shales have a quite high original HI and are classified as highly mature type II source rocks. HI is calculated
starting from the RockEval S2 parameter that defines the amount of hydrocarbons generated through thermal cracking of
kerogen and using the formula (S2/TOC) x 100. An additional parameter that can be obtained with the pyrolysis analysis is the
quantity of free hydrocarbons (S1 – mg HC/g rock).
The Thermal Maturity is the extent of heat-driven reactions that converts the sedimentary organic matter into hydrocarbon
compounds and graphite (Peters et al., 2005). Thermal maturity is commonly defined in terms of hydrocarbon generation
window (oil, light oil and condensate, gas window).
The most commonly used method for measuring the thermal maturity is the reflectance of the vitrinite to the incident light.
The reflectivity of vitrinite changes as the temperature at which the sediments have been exposed increases and it is identified
as the percent of incident light reflected (Ro%) by the fragments of plant tissue (vitrinite) under an oil immersion microscope
IPTC17186 3

measured by using a photometer and polished kerogen slide. The hydrocarbon generation window approximately corresponds
to a Ro% ranging from 0.6 to 2 %. The thermal maturity of the most studied Shale Gas plays is higher than 1.2%, suitable for
the generation of large volumes of gas and even cracking of liquid hydrocarbons to gas.
The analytical procedure for the preparation and analysis of vitrinite is quite complex and can not be easily transferred to
well site. An alternative to the vitrinite reflectance is the Tmax parameter obtained during the RockEval analysis of the
kerogen. Unfortunately the Tmax of very mature kerogen is difficult to measure and for this reason its range of applicability is
narrower than those of vitrinite reflectance. Tmax and also other maturity parameters can be converted in a Ro% equivalent
value.

Mineralogical analysis
Among the main variables that characterize a shale gas reservoir, the mineralogy is of basic importance because drives the
fraccability and, consequently, has direct impact on its productivity. Mineralogical composition is directly related to the
brittleness, defined as the capability of rock to fracture when an external force is applied, such as the fluid pressure during
hydraulic fracturing. Equation to compute the brittleness index, mainly based on the mineralogical content of the formation,
were proposed for the Barnett shale (Jarvie et al, 2007) but dedicated algorithms are necessary to correctly calculate the
brittleness for different reservoir.
The bulk mineralogy through XRD analysis gives a quantitative estimate of the crystalline components in the shale. The XRD
methodology is reasonably precise for the crystalline phases while in case of amorphous phases (such as kerogen) or
microcrystalline phases (such as some clays), the use of at least two other data sources like XRF (X-ray fluorescence) and
SEM-EDS (Scanning Electron Microscopy coupled to Energy Dispersive Spectrometry) are usually recommended to obtain a
complete and correct mineralogical model of the shale.
The XRF methodology provides the chemical analysis, while the SEM-EDS provide petrographic information. Another
fundamental parameter for the definition of the mineralogical shale reservoir quality is the clay type. High smectite content is,
for example, detrimental in terms of fraccability and borehole stability. Usually, in the XRD bulk analysis, the clays are
defined in term of % weight of illite-type, kaolinite and chlorite, while the quantification of the smectite or mixed layered
clays (such as illite/smectite) is difficult unless preferentially oriented samples are used.

Petrophysical characterization
Due to the extremely complex composition and the characteristics of the pore system, the evaluation of a shale gas reservoir
represents a challenge for conventional petrophysical models that need consequently to be strongly integrated and calibrated
through direct measurements performed on rock samples. The logs response is generally able to discriminate or identify
different rock properties within a shale sequence but it’s often difficult to come out with a reliable quantitative evaluation of
the main parameters, namely TOC volume, porosity, fluids saturation. The set up of a correct mineralogical model represents
only the first step of the job when evaluating shale reservoirs, but it is extremely important in reducing the uncertainty related
to the estimation of the pore volume available for gas accumulation. For this reason the analyses of organic and inorganic
fractions performed at the well site on cuttings and cores provide the log analyst with valuable information since the beginning
and enable him to anticipate a proper reservoir evaluation useful for taking operative decisions and driving an adequate cores
sampling.

Some considerations about the reliability of the drill cuttings for advanced analysis

Drill cuttings are produced by the mechanical action of the drilling bit penetrating in the formation and are carried to the
surface by the drilling fluid (mud). The cuttings are separated from the mud over vibrating screens (shale shakers) and are
collected to provide direct preliminary information about lithology and hydrocarbon occurrence of the drilled formation. These
data are historically used, since the early days of rigsite geological analysis, for the Formation Evaluation and Reservoir
characterisation.
In the recent years, the steady development of both drilling technologies and fluids systems has increased the impact of the
drilling environment on the drill cuttings quality. PDC/TSP bits, often used in conjunction with turbines and down-hole
motors, due to their shear and thermal effect, powder the rock and can modify its original texture producing ‘metamorphosed’
cuttings (Graves 1986. Wenger et al. 2009), affecting lithology evaluation (e.g. calcimetry overestimation, particularly in
carbonates), destroying biofacies and altering rock physical and mechanical properties (e.g. density and strength) even if, also
recently, these data has been successfully used to support complete petrophysical evaluation in the absence of well logs
(Ortega et al., 2012).
As to drilling fluids pollution, Eni internal studies have shown that OBM, SBM hydrocarbon-based components and glycols
systems, difficult to be removed by cleaning processes, can interfere on source rock evaluation and distribution of free
hydrocarbons both on cuttings and fluid samples; furthermore, organic additives (especially fatty acid-based lubricants) can
degrade at high temperature to some alcoholic components that influence the gas chromatograph response, being detected as
alkanes (“false” gas shows), while in other cases their fluorescence can impair oil shows analysis (Capone et al., 2006).
4 IPTC17186

For the above reasons, before starting the Advanced Real-Time Cutting Analysis project, a detailed evaluation of the reliability
of cuttings in different drilling environment context has been performed. This evaluation is based on the comparison between
several laboratories analysis from cuttings and core chips (less affected by drilling environment variables) coming from
different wells drilled worldwide. Moreover, additional information has been acquired during the first application of the
methodology proposed in this paper.
The results are summarised in the table below (tab. 1).

  Cuttings Reliability 
Bit effect  Mud effect 
Rock bit  PDC/TSP  WBM  OBM  Mud additives 
(tooth/insert) 
Lithological description  reliable  Powdered samples/Rock  Reliable   reliable  LCM (Lost Circulation 
flour/Platelets. Sometimes  Material) can be 
unreliability (e.g. sandstone  interpreted as 
or carbonate).   bottomhole formation 
Stratigraphy  reliable  Possible destruction of  reliable  reliable  LCM can be interpreted 
microfossils/palynomorph  as bottomhole 
formation 
Hydrocarbon show  reliable  Possible “false” gas shows  reliable  Problems on  Possible  “false”  gas 
evaluation  fluorescence  shows  and  “false” 
analysis  fluorescence. 
Porosity  Partially reliable  Poor reliability  reliability not  reliability not  Depending  on  additive 
affected   affected   type 
Permeability  Poor reliability  No reliability   reliability not  reliability not  Depending  on  additive 
affected  affected  type 
Density  Slight  Underestimation 20‐30%  reliability not  reliability not  Depending  on  additive 
underestimation  affected  affected  type 
Mineralogical analysis  reliable  reliable  reliable  reliable  Depending  on  additive 
type 
Chemical (elemental)  reliable  reliable  reliable  reliable  Depending  on  additive 
analysis  type 
TOC content  reliable  reliable  reliable  Required  solvent  Not  reliable  in  case  of 
washing  organic additive  
Source Rock properties  Possible S1  S1 strongly underestimated  reliable  S1 not reliable  Not  reliable  in  case  of 
underestimation  S2 and T max reliable   S2  and  Tmax  organic  additive  or 
S2 and T max reliable  require  solvent  glycol 
washing  
Table 1 – Cuttings reliability in relationship to the drilling environment

As indicated in the table, mineralogical and chemical analyses are not or poorly affected by the type of bit or mud used during
drilling operations and can provide valuable information in case of use of PDC bit for a proper lithological and formational
evaluation (e.g. to differentiate between calcite and dolomite). For organic geochemistry, problems are mainly related to the
use of OBM or organic additive, requiring appropriate solvent washing or, if possible, modification of the mud system (using
different additives).
According to the above considerations, in order to obtain reliable measurements it is necessary to carefully plan the acquisition
program according to the objective of the well and apply the necessary actions to mitigate the effect of the drilling
environment.

Another important point to take into account is the correct depth positioning of the drill cutting; these samples are lagged and
an accurate determination of the lag time (time necessary for the mud to rise from the bottom hole to the surface) is crucial for
precisely correlating cuttings to the formations and depths from which they originate. It is then strongly recommended that
proper checks to verify the true lag time have to be routinely performed (e.g. using gas tracer as propane).

It is also worth to remember that analysis on cuttings should be carried out only on the fraction with size less than 5 mm in
order to avoid caving contamination; sometimes cavings are erroneously used for specific analysis due to their larger size and
because are generally not affected by the bit effect. It must be stressed that cavings are not representative to the bottom hole
formation and are generally originated from the previously drilled section of the open hole. Incorrect evaluation of specific
properties of the drilled rocks using cuttings (e.g. TOC from cuttings is considered half of the core TOC, Jarvie, 2010) might
be partially due to the above described reason.
IPTC17186 5

Methodology Workflow for Advanced Real-Time Cutting Analysis

Innovative procedures and workflow have been defined in order to guarantee a high quality level of the rigsite measurements.
The proposed workflow can be summarised as follows:
- Accurate planning phase, focused on the mud program in order to avoid the possible utilisation of additives that could
negatively impact the geochemical analyses as described in the previous paragraph. In this phase it is necessary a
strict collaboration with the mud engineer to find a suitable solution able to guarantee a good compromise between
the quality of the rigsite analyses and drilling needs (e.g. borehole stability).
- Definition dedicated sampling and treatments procedures of the drilling cuttings
- Utilisation of a set of tools, capable to properly work on field conditions and in remote areas, for the chemical,
mineralogical and geochemical characterisation of drill cuttings or cores. The tools utilised are: portable XRD (X-Ray
Diffractometer) for mineralogical analyses, hand-held XRF (X-Ray fluorescence) for chemical (elemental) analyses,
TOC analyser for the direct analysis of the total organic content and a Pyrolysis analyzer for the source rock
properties measurements. These tools are installed into a dedicated geochemical unit at rig site where a crew of
technicians provides a continuous real time analysis 24/7.
- Application of specific Quality Control criteria, defined by Eni specialists, to validate the rigsite analyses.

The raw data (including diffractograms and pyrograms) acquired at rigsite are sent in near real time to the Eni headquarter
specialists to provide a quick interpretation.

More details about the above points are described in the following paragraphs.

Acquisition sample planning

The mud type and additives can have a significant impact on the quality of the geochemical analysis. Solid additives can alter
the bulk mineralogical and chemical composition. Kerogenic additives, aimed at controlling wellbore stability, can
contaminate the organic carbon measurement beyond any possible correction. Oil base mud will alter the pyrolysis results,
covering with its fingerprint the S1 trace and making it difficult to estimate S2 and Tmax. Hence, whenever planning an
operation where geochemical measurements are required, a good coordination between the drilling team in charge to plan the
mud program and the G&G team is paramount. In the presented case history the good synergy between all involved parties
(G&G Team, Drilling and Mud Specialists) allowed for a successful operation. In fact, the original mud program foresaw the
utilization of a shale stabilizing additive constituted of almost pure kerogenes. The internal discussion between all the involved
parties allowed an optimization of the mud composition considering this additive as back up solution, to be used only in case
of high borehole instability. As a result, the wellbore was stable, the additive not required and the geochemical analyses of
high quality. Also the utilization of glycol, originally expected in the mud composition as anti-frozen, was cancelled
considering the impact of this product on the Pyrolysis analyses (intermediate peak on the pyrogram, impossible to remove
also after washing, providing underestimated T max measurements).

Rig site analysis

Sampling
The samples analysed in this study are both from cuttings and from core chips. For the cuttings, the analysis is performed on
the size less than 5 mm in order to remove caving contamination.
Having used in this application water based mud (WBM), all cuttings samples have been washed with water in order to
remove mud contamination.
After washing, all samples are dried in an industrial oven at 70 °C (average drying time 2-3 hours). A small amount of dry
sample is grinded by means of a laboratory mill for XRF, TOC and Pyrolysis analyses. The preparation consists in milling the
rock for approximately 1 minute, until it is reduced to a homogeneous dust.
After grinding, a sieve mesh 100 is used to eliminating any parts bigger than this size.
The total amount of sample needed is:
10-15 mg for the TOC analysis;
25-30 mg for the Pyrolysis analysis;
About 5 grams for the XRF analysis.
Each sample left is saved for QC and further analysis.

The XRD sample is prepared separately with a hand-operated mortar, in order to avoid grinding it down too fine and losing the
resolution on the mineralogy structure. The amount of sample used for XRD is few milligrams.

In case of well drilled with OBM, the washing procedures are different due to the organic base of the drilling fluids (diesel or
low toxic oil) and must be used special washing solvents to remove the presence of organic fluids, otherwise affecting the
6 IPTC17186

measurements (especially TOC and Pyrolysis). The definition of rigsite washing procedures, in case of OBM, is currently
under evaluation.
Below is a schematic (fig. 1) showing the approximate duration of all the sampling and analysis procedures. Every step of the
process has been optimized. A specific oven temperature has been chosen as a compromise between sample processing time
and prevention of possibly burning away hydrocarbons from the rock.

XRF analysis
5 min
Grinding Start TOC acid attack TOC Analysis
1 hr
Start Pyrolysis Pyrolysis complete
40 min

Drilled rock Sampling Washing Drying 5 min

T0 T1
Lagtime 5 min 5 min 1 hr

Manual  Start XRD analysis XRD complete

Grinding
1 hr

2h 30 total time from T1 optimizing simultaneous samples: 15‐20 samples per day

Figure 1 – Advanced Real-Time Cuttings Analysis timing

Furthermore, the start of each analysis is synchronized so that the longer ones are started first, the ones requiring the longest
sample preparation (TOC involves acidizing the sample to remove inorganic carbon) are carried out for a series of consecutive
samples, so that they can be analyzed relatively quickly one after the other. The quickest analysis (XRF) is done in the
remaining time in-between the other procedures.

The total amount of sample used for all analyses is limited to less than 50 grams, so that the sampling program does not need
to be significantly altered and there is abundant spare material for further laboratory analysis, double-checks or quality control.
The above steps were taken to reach two targets:
 To turn around rock samples analysis at a speed comparable with the drilling rate. In a real operation, in fact, the
mobile laboratory can operate on site so long as there is a rig, therefore it was not acceptable to reach TD with a
significant backlog of samples, when the rig needs to be moved onto the next location and to drill the well according
to the results of those samples.
 To make the analytical procedure realistically feasible for a single operator.

Field analysers
All the analysis are performed at rig site in near real-time, hence the results are ready just a few hours after the sample has
been collected, and decisions can be taken about the formation while drilling. The instruments (fig. 2) are deployed in a
wellsite unit specifically designed for the scope. The crew works a typical rigsite shift, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. All the
technicians working in the project have been specifically trained in the use of these instruments and work in constant
communication with the Eni wellsite geologist.

XRF (X-ray Fluorescence analysis)

A hand-held XRF analyzer is used to obtain elemental composition of cuttings and cores.
The system is designed for field usage. The XRF spectrometer enables very quick rock analysis and can provide hundreds of
tests per day. The reduced analytical time (from 5 to maximum 10 minutes) makes it compatible with analysis while drilling,
even at high ROP.
The system can carry out a semi-quantitative analysis of up to 30 elements, ranging from Mg (atomic number 12) to U (atomic
number 92). Elements, depending on the limits of detection, can be measured in ppm or in % concentration. All the elements
with atomic number lower than 12 (from H to Na) are considered as Light Elements (LE).

XRD (X-ray Diffractometry)

A portable XRD has been selected for the mineralogical analysis of samples.
X-Ray Diffraction enables to identify and quantify the minerals present in the sample This X-ray powder diffractometer differs
from most such systems because normally the sample being analyzed is fixed, and the system optics are rotating around it, in
IPTC17186 7

order to capture the diffractions. On the contrary, the present instrument has a proprietary system to keep the powdered sample
in motion while the beam remains fixed. This in turn has enabled to drastically reduce the size of the instrument, and make it
portable.
Each mineral has defined by a specific X-ray pattern and all the detected peaks are matched with the ones present in a
reference library. A simultaneous qualitative XRF analysis reduces the field of possible minerals, restricting it to those which
can host the elements detected.
A specific training of the operators is required in order to interpret the raw X-ray data. The support of the laboratory specialists
should be necessary to build up a good mineralogical model.

TOC (Total Organic Carbon)

The quantity of organic matter in terms of Total Organic Carbon (TOC) is the basic quantitative parameter for discriminating
the quality of a potential source rock.
A new instrument has been specifically designed for this project. The sample is analysed by burning the organic carbon in O2
environment. The detector is a TCD type.
Proprietary acidizing procedure to eliminate the inorganic carbon has been developed. The speed of analysis (5 min)
compensates for the length of the acid attack.

PYROLYSIS
The Pyrolysis analyzer was specifically designed to measure S1, S2 and Tmax of drilled samples at rig site.
The pyrolysis method consists of a programmed temperature heating (in a pyrolysis oven) in an inert atmosphere of a small
sample (25-30 mg) to quantitatively and selectively determine the free hydrocarbons contained in the sample and the
hydrocarbon that are volatilized during the cracking of the unextractable organic matter in the sample (kerogen).
The pyrolysis oven is kept isothermally at 300°C and the free hydrocarbons are volatilized and measured as the S1 peak
(detected by FID). The temperature is then increased from 300° to 550°C (at 25°C/min). This is the phase of volatilization of
the very heavy hydrocarbons compounds (>C40) as well as the cracking of non-volatile organic matter. The hydrocarbons
released from this thermal cracking are measured as the S2 peak (by FID). The temperature at which S2 reaches its maximum
depends on the nature and maturity of the kerogen and is called Tmax and provides information about the Kerogen maturity.
Pyrolysis provides information about hydrocarbons-generation potential, organic type, and the extent of thermal diagenesis
(maturation) of source rock.
The system is specifically optimized and designed for field operations.

Figure 2 - Field equipment for advanced cuttings analysis. From the left to the right: hand-held XRF, portable XRD, TOC analyzer
and Pyrolysis analyzer.

The total time to perform the complete analysis of one sample, from the sampling to the results, is estimated around 2.5 hours.
Considering that more samples can be simultaneously processed, up to 15-20 samples can be analysed per day.

Quality Control

During the preliminary phase, before sending the equipment at rigsite, the instruments have been calibrated at the lab sites
using international standards.
Afterwards, to verify the quality of the wellsite analysis, some of the samples tested at rigsite have been sent to the Eni
laboratories together with the raw data (rigsite diffractograms and pyrograms) for an accurate validation by the specialists. The
results of these tests can be used, if necessary, to calibrate the field analyzer measurements.
8 IPTC17186

Comparison between cuttings and core analysis

The reliability of the analyses on cuttings has been performed by means of a comparison between the measurements on the
chips from bottomhole cores and the correspondent cuttings collected while coring.
This comparison indicates that the most part of the parameters analysed on cuttings, applying the methodology described in
this paper, are not affected by the drilling environment (bit effect and mud type), especially if the cavings are properly
removed. About the Organic Geochemistry, the values of TOC, S2 and T max on cuttings are quite similar to those recorded
on core chips (fig. 3).
These good results have been achieved also because all possible contamination due to the mud additives have been removed
during the planning phase (e.g. in a reference wells, unreliable Tmax values were due to the utilisation of glycol).
On the contrary, the parameter S1, indicating the abundance of free hydrocarbon, shows a constant underestimation on cuttings
(ratio S1core/S1 cuttings around 3), due to the strong destructive action of the PDC core bit and consequent hydrocarbon loss
before sampling.

Fig. 3 - Ratio between some organic geochemical parameter measured on cores and cuttings collected while coring

XRD and XRF analyses on core chips and correspondent cuttings, using the rigsite equipment, indicate a good relationship,
confirming that mineralogical and chemical parameters from cuttings can be considered reliable.
In the following tables (tab. 2 & tab. 3) are indicated the ratios between the average mineralogical and chemical composition
from core and from cuttings in correspondence of the shale target interval.

XRD Field analyses Carbonates Silicates Accessories

Calcite Dol. Siderite Quartz Plagioclase Clays+Micas Pyrite

Ratio average Core value/average Cutting value 0.84 1.17 0.69 1.01 1.05 1.00 1.04

Table 2

XRF field analyses Fe Ca K S Al Si V As Mo 

Ratio average Core value/average Cutting value 0.92 0.96 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.44 0.98 1.19

Table 3
IPTC17186 9

Comparison between rigsite analysis and laboratories analysis

Mineralogical/elemental analyses
To verify the quality of the wellsite mineralogical analysis, laboratory analyses have been performed on the same sample,
mainly through XRD and QC by XRF. The mineralogy composition was carried out by X-ray Powder Diffraction (XRD) using
a Panalytical Cubi’X instrument equipped with a CuKα (λ =1.54178 Ǻ) radiation source and a Fast detector. The phase
identification, considered a critical parameter to define the mineralogical model, was made by a search-match procedure
comparing the position and the relative intensity of the reflections with the data contained in a reference database.
The quantitative phase analysis was carried out by means of a full-profile fitting procedures based on the Rietveld method
using the SIROQUANT software. The results of quantitative analysis are expressed as weight % on the crystalline component
only. The chemical analysis was obtained by a Panalytical WDXRF (Wavelength Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence) spectrometry
using a standardless method for the quantification of the major elements.
The figure 4 shows a comparison between the amounts of some main minerals detected using the wellsite XRD system and the
XRD laboratories methodology. The data are related to quartz, calcite and total clays as a function of the depth. The agreement
could be considered satisfactory especially for quartz and carbonates. For the total clays, as expected, there are some
systematic differences due to the different instruments used and the different sample preparation. Nevertheless the trend is
respected and the differences are, generally, within the 10%.

quartz % weight calcite

% weight total clays %weight
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 0,0 20,0 40,0 60,0 80,0 100,0 0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0
depth (m)

depth (m)

Figure 4 - Comparison between mineralogical data carried out by wellsite XRD (blue diamonds) and by laboratories XRD (red
squares). Quartz, calcite and total clays have been considered.

The good quality of the wellsite mineralogical data can be appreciated also comparing this data to the chemical analysis by the
laboratory XRF carried out on selected rocks samples. Due to the low amount of plagioclase and feldspar of the considered
rocks, it has been possible to assume that the Al2O3 and K2O are specific of the clays minerals (particularly of the “illite type”
phase) as well as the CaO of the carbonates. As shown in the figure 5, the wellsite mineralogical data are in generally good
agreement with the chemical data carried out by laboratory analyses. In particular looking to the correlation, the best
agreement was found between the total carbonates by XRD and the CaO content (R2=0.77). The correlation coefficient is not
so bad also for the total clay content and Al2O3 as well as for the illite type minerals and K2O content even if the R2 decreases
at about 0.65.
50 38 20
% wt "illite type" (by wellsite XRD)

% wt total carbonates (by wellsite

% wt total clays (by wellsite XRD

2
R = 0.7727
2
R = 0.6534
45 36
2
R = 0.6617 15
XRD)

40 34

10
35 32

30 30 5
10.000 12.000 14.000 16.000 18.000 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000 4.500 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000
%wt Al2O3 (byXRF laboratory) % wt K2O (by XRF laboratory) %wt CaO (by XRF laboratory)

Figure 5 - Comparison between the wellsite XRD data and the chemical analyses carried out by the laboratory XRF.
10 IPTC17186

Organic geochemical analyses

During the drilling phase some of the samples analysed at the wellsite were sent to the central labs and analysed with the
standard methods in order to quality control the real-time results. The lab analyses have been conducted on a Leco TOC and
on a RockEval 6 instrument with the standard conditions indicate, for example, by the Norwegian Industry Guide to Organic
Geochemical Analyses published by the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NIGOGA, 2000).
An example of the comparison between lab and wellsite results obtained on the real samples of a limited section of a well is
shown in the graph below (fig. 6). Even if the sample population is strongly biased toward the low range of TOC, a good
correlation between the two sets of measures is found (R2=0.966). An intercept of around 0.1% TOC is probably due to the
different procedures during the sample preparation in the lab in comparison to the well site, but this does not affect the final
results in a significant way.
In general, TOC analysis showed very consistent results since this initial phase, while the pyrolysis parameters were a more
difficult task to be optimized; S2 and HI recorded on the first well showed a very good relationship with the laboratories
results while the Tmax values resulted slightly underestimated (fig. 7). The most delicate feature resulted to be the position of
the thermocouple measuring the temperature of the sample during the heating phase: a fine adjustment of this device was
necessary to avoid inaccuracy.
Based on these results, some technical modifications on the Pyrolyser were done before the spud of the second well, to
improve the quality of the rigsite analyses.

1,80

1,60

1,40
TOC% - Wellsite results

1,20

1,00

y = 0,9784x - 0,0979
0,80
R2 = 0,9664

0,60

0,40

0,20

0,00
0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00 1,20 1,40 1,60 1,80
TOC% - Lab results

Figure 6 - Comparison between the wellsite and laboratory TOC data (limited section of a single well)

re (Geolog data) Bottom Core (Eni data)

TOC S1 S2 HI TMAX
2100 2100 2100 2100 2100 2100
P F G VG P F G III II I IMM M

2200 2200 2200 2200 2200 2200

2300 2300 2300 2300 2300 2300

2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400

2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500

2600 2600 2600 2600 2600 2600

2700 2700 2700 2700 2700 2700

2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800

2900 2900 2900 2900 2900 2900

3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000

3100 3100 3100 3100 3100 3100

Cuttings (wellsite analyses) Bottom hole core (wellsite analyses)

Cuttings (laboratories analyses) Bottom hole core (laboratories analyses)
Figure 7 - Comparison between the wellsite and laboratory analyses
IPTC17186 11

Case History

The Advanced Real-Time Cutting Analysis methodology was applied for the first time during a drilling campaign in the frame
of the new Eni Shale Gas project, focused on the evaluation of a shale play in a poor explored area. The main objective was to
support operational decision during the drilling activity (e.g. coring point, “sweet spot” identification) and integrate in near
real time the formation evaluation process (e.g. electrical log, mud gas data, desorption data).
The application of the methodology in the target section of the first two vertical exploratory wells (Well 4 & 5) and in a
subsequent horizontal drain hole (Well 5 Hor) is herebelow discussed.
All wells were drilled with PDC bits and WBM system, avoiding the utilisation of additive suspected to create interference on
the geochemical analyses. Bottomhole cores were planned in all wells, in correspondence of the expected reservoir, for a
detailed characterisation of the shale sequence.

Well 4
In this well, one of the main operational challenges was the definition of the correct coring point.
The analysis of the data from the offset wells (Well 1, 2 & 3) drilled in the past and the limited knowledge of the shale
sequence in the area required a particular approach for coring operation optimization. Figure 8 compares the available datasets
from the offset wells in the pre-drilling phase (fig. 8a) and the datasets recorded during drilling the new exploratory Well 4
(fig. 8b). The red rectangle represents the possible reservoir sequence, as defined during the pre-drilling phase. The GR
response was quite flat, without any significant markers within the entire sequence; also the lithological description did not
identify any particular variation of the formation’s characteristics to be easily evaluated with a standard cutting analysis.
Only the TOC measured on the cores from one of the offset well (Well 2) appeared to be a good indicator or, anyway, was
considered a discriminating parameter of the reservoir section; for this reason, it was decided to use this parameter to locate the
top and the bottom of the cored interval in the exploratory Well 4.

Offset Well 1 Offset Well 2  Offset Well 3

Well 4
GR  Res GR  Res  TOC GR Res
GR Mud Gas TOC 

Reservoir 
Reservoir 

Figure 8a Figure 8b

The advanced analysis on cuttings started in the target section and the organic content was continuously measured with a
sampling rate of 5 m in order to entirely evaluate the shale sequence and to recognize the reservoir section to be cored. Figure
8b shows the gradual increase of the organic matter content starting from a certain depth in good agreement with increase of
the gas shows, while GR remains quite flat without significant variations (only a moderate and gradual increase is noticed
bottomward). Based on the increase of gas shows and TOC, corresponding to the top of most promising interval into the shale
reservoir, it was decided to stop drilling operation and start with bottomhole coring.

Once the core was on surface, a complete set of analysis (TOC, Rock Eval, XRD and XRF) was performed on core chips with
1 m sampling rate. At the bottom of the last core, a strong decrease of organic matter was observed (fig. 9), indicating the
possible termination of the reservoir sequence. Based on the correlation with offset wells two alternatives were evaluated:
1. Bottom of the reservoir due to series reduction
2. Presence of level with low TOC interlayered in a thicker reservoir
12 IPTC17186

Offset Well 2  Well 4 

GR  TOC GR Mud Gas TOC

?
Figure 9

Taking into account the regional knowledge of the area, it was decide to temporarily stop the coring operation and to run in
hole the drilling string, checking the bottom hole samples. Few more meters were drilled analyzing continuously the cuttings
samples; low TOC content was confirmed, indicating the shale sequence reduction (fig. 10). Based on these data, it was
decided to drill ahead, without cutting additional bottomhole cores. This choice resulted in significant savings obtained in
terms of rig time (trip out and trip in of the coring BHA) and cancelled coring operation in a no-reservoir section. The total
saved rig time was estimated around 4 days.

Offset Well 2 

GR  TOC  Well 4

GR Mud  TOC

Missing Sequence
Figure 10

Wells 5 and 5 Hor

For the second exploratory well (Well 5), the main goal was the quick identification of “sweet spot”, zone of greatest potential
into the shale reservoir, in order to define the navigation depth of a horizontal drain planned to be drilled immediately after the
vertical one.
Thanks to the specific workflow based on the real-time geochemical and mineralogical analysis on cuttings and cores, it was
possible to perform an accurate evaluation of the shale reservoir sequence integrating these information with LWD/wireline
logs and the other available wellsite data (desorption data, mud gas data), identifying the best target zone for the horizontal
drain.
IPTC17186 13

In particular TOC data were used to build the organic content curve through electrical log for gas in place calculation (fig. 11),
while XRD/XRF data were used to calibrate the response of the geochemical/mineralogical log for clay composition (fig. 12).
This solution permitted to use the same rig to drill the horizontal drain, avoiding stand by cost and mob/demob rig rates
applicable in case of re-entry operation in a later phase. On the well 5, the cutting analysis was also successfully used to
optimize the coring operation.
Further savings were related to the optimisation of the special core analysis, carried out mainly in correspondence of the most
critical intervals as highlighted from the wellsite measurements.

Lithology Lithology
from log from core/cuttings 
GR Res D/N  ‐ Pe TOC analysis

WIRELINE LOGS CALIBRATION

Before calibration After calibration

Heavy Th
e
Kaolinit

r
ye
d la
ixe
ite M
ite
Ill

lon
oril
a
Mic

ntm
nite
uco

Mo
Gla
Chlorite Feldspa

Mineralogical log shows After calibration the

the presence of shale potassium curve in the
apparently with very low shales indicates that the
K (XRD) K (LOG) K (RESCALED) shale are composed mainly
potassium content (K).
TOC from/cuttings K log has been calibrated against of Illite.
TOC from log calibrated on wellsite analysis the K curve from XRD

Fig. 11- Composite with integration of log and cuttings/core data Fig. 12 – Log calibration using XRF data

The Advanced Real-Time Cutting Analysis was also performed in the horizontal drain (Well 5 Hor), with 5 m sampling rate,
to characterize the possible lateral shale variation and to integrate this information with LWD and mud gas data (fig. 13). This
particular approach being at its first application still needs to be properly understood and developed, but certainly has high
potential for future application especially in a development phase once a robust geochemical/mineralogical model has been
built for fracing/completion strategy optimization.

Clay 

Calcite 

TOC  C1 Mud Gas 

Fig. 13 – Well 5 Hor - Comparison between TOC and mineralogy (from cuttings) and geomechanical / image logs (from LWD)
14 IPTC17186

Results and conclusion

The utilisation of the Advanced Real-Time Cuttings Analysis methodology, applied for the first time during drilling
exploratory wells in the frame of an Eni Shale Gas project, permitted to obtain significant results herebelow summarized:

 Validation of a new set of tools able to provide near real time geochemical/mineralogical characterization on cuttings
and core directly at rigsite.
 Calibration and integration of wireline logs.
 Reliable preliminary Formation Evaluation and Reservoir Characterisation in near real time for shale gas reservoir.
 Optimisation of drilling operation (e.g. coring point, identification of “sweet spot” for possible frac job, smarter
completion etc.)
 Indication about wellbore positioning in case of horizontal drain
 Selection of more appropriate interval for hydraulic stimulation integrating LWD/wireline logs (e.g. image log, sonic
log).
 Significant reduction of operating times with consequent cost savings.

Considering the positive results of the application, it is expected to export the methodology in other wells in the area and in the
other countries where unconventional exploration activity is planned by Eni.
Possible applications also in conventional reservoir are currently under evaluation especially for geosteering purposes, in
context where conventional FE approaches can not be applied due to technical limitations (e.g. ultra HPHT, Slim hole) or to
perform a quick lithological/mineralogical characterisation and HC identification in poorly explored geological basin.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the management of Eni e&p for providing support and permission to publish this work.
Special thanks go to our colleagues P. Caccialanza and P. Casali for their valuable support in the laboratories analyses, and A.
Ortenzi and G. Ferroni for the important suggestions provided during the development of the project and the preparation of
this manuscript. Thanks also to Xiaho Lihua and M. Sergiacomo for the support in the drilling mud optimization.

References
Alixant J.L.and Collie D. A. L. “Spectral Gamma Ray Measurement on Cuttings: An Alternative to MWD”, SPE/IADC 57550, SPE/IADC
Middle East Drilling Technology Conference, Abu Dhabi, November 1999.
Buller D., Hughes S., Market J., Petre E., Spain D. and Odumosu T., “Petrophysical Evaluation for Enhancing Hydraulic Stimulation in
Horizontal Shale Gas Wells”, SPE 132990, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, September 2010.
Capone G., Carugo C., Cerri R., Riva A., Riva M., Zausa F., “How new drilling technologies can strongly affect well data quality for
geological and geochemical interpretation”, GEO 2006, Bahrain, 2006.
Chelini V., Muttoni A., Mele M., Rossi E., Galimberti R. and Ortenzi A., “Gas Shale reservoir Characterisation: a North Africa case”, SPE
134292, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, September 2010.
Dix M.C., Spain D., Walling C., Sano J., Casarta N. and Richardson A. “Stratigraphy and Depositional Dynamics of the Haynesville-Bossier
Sequence: Inferences from Whole Rock Elemental Data”, AAPG Convention, New Orleans, April 2010.
Jarvie D.M., Hill R.J., Ruble T.E. and Pollastro R.M., “Unconventional shale-gas systems: The Mississippian Barnett Shale of north-central
Texas as one model for thermogenic shale-gas assessment”, American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 91, p. 475-499,
2007.
Jarvie D.M., “Shale Plays: Making Gas and Oil from Shale Resource Systems”, IFP Presentation, 2010.
Jones P., Halpern H., Dahan M., Bellaci I., Neuman P., Akkurt R., Al-Qathami S., Al-Amoudi M., Malki K., Dix M. and Zeriek R.,
“Implementation of Geochemical Technology for Real-Time Tar Assessment and Geosteering: Saudi Arabia”, Offshore Mediterranean
Conference and Exhibition, Ravenna, March 2007.
Graves W. “Bit-generated rock textures and their effect on evaluation of lithology, porosity, and shows in drill-bit cuttings samples”, AAPG
Bull., 70, 1986.
Loermans T., Kanj M. and Bradford C. “Advanced Mud Logging: from Archie’s Dream to Reality”, SPE 106324, SPE Technical
Symposium, Dhahran, May 2005.
Loermans T., Kimour F., Bradford C., Meridji Y., Bondabou K., Kasprzykowski P., Karoum R., Naigeon M and Marsala A. “ Results from
pilot tests prove the potential of Advanced Mud Logging”, SPE 149134, SPE/DGS Saudi Arabia Technical Symposium and Exhibition,
Al-Khobar, May 2011.
Marsala A., Loermans T., Shen S., Scheibe C. and Zereik R. „Portable Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence integrates Mineralogy and
Chemostratigraphy into Real-Time Formation Evaluation“, SPWLA 52nd Annual Logging Symposium, May 2011.
IPTC17186 15

NIGOGA, “The Norwegian Industry Guide to Organic Geochemical Analyses”, Edition 4.0, published by Norsk Hydro, Statoil, Geolab Nor,
SINTEF Petroleum Research and the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, May 2000.
Ortega C. and Aguilera R., “A Complete Petrophysical Evaluation Method for Tight Formations from Only Drill Cuttings in the Absence of
Well Logs”, SPE 161875, SPE Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, 2012.
Peters K.E., Walters C.C., Moldovan J.M., “The Biomarker guide. Biomarkers and Isotopes in the Environment and Human History”.
Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Ratcliffe K., Pearce T., Martin J., Wright A. and Dix M.C. “Near Real Time Chemostratigraphy solves Casing Point Challenges”, 90-91 and
173, Offshore, September 2001.
Rickman R., Mullen M., Petre E., Grieser B. and Kundert D., “A Practical Use of Shale Petrophysics for Stimulation Desigm Optimisation:
All Shale Plays Are Not Clones of the Barnett Shale”, SPE 115258, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
September 2008.
Tonner D., Hughes S. and Dix M., “Wellsite Geochemistry - New Analytical Tools Used to Evaluate Unconventional Reservoirs to Assist in
Well Construction and Smart Completions”, SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, Cartagena, June 2012.
Wenger L.M., Pottorf R.J., Macleod G., Otten G, Dreyfus S., Justwan H. and Sekula E., “Drill-Bit Metamorphism: Recognition and Impact
on Show Evaluation”, SPE 125218, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, October 2009.
Whittaker A., “Mud Logging Handbook”, 247-261, Prentice-Hall, 1991.