Overview of Core Measurements in

Tight Mudstones and Other FineGrained Rocks with Emphasis on

Reconciling Inconsistent
Observations in the Bakken
Joe Comisky
Aug 19, 2015

Overview
Description of commercial core analysis protocols in relation to
measurements at OU
Porosity, Grain Volume, and Saturations
CoreLab MR Shale i.e. NMR porosity in core plugs

Total vs. Effective vs. Somewhere in Between Porosity for Tight

Mudstones
Dielectric Logging Overview (In relation to HESS case study)
HESS Bakken Case Study
Observations, inconsistencies, and path forward

Encana Montney Study

Commercial Lab Shale Core

Analysis
Low Permeability Rock - Crushed sample analysis
Weatherford - Shale Rock Properties (SRP)
TerraTek Tight Rock Analysis (TRA)
Corelab GRI method

200 300 g

Corelab GRI Protocol

Porosity and Grain Density Methods

Porosity and Grain Density Methods

Porosity and Grain Density Methods

Grain Mass = Bulk Mass at Dry Conditions

Assumes that no residual fluids such as water are left in the sample.
This is rarely the case in tight samples so 2 types of measurements are done

Bulk density measured on in-tact sample

Sample is crushed to various sizes and then placed in a helium expansion device to
determine grain volume (residual liquids will look like matrix to the helium atoms)
Crushed sample is extracted using toluene and chloroform methanol to extract
water and hydrocarbons
Sample is placed in a convection oven at 100 degC to thoroughly dry
Grain volume is re-measured under truly dry conditions

As Received: Residual fluids (mostly water, or some residual oil if in a liquid rich
system) are left in the rock
In dry gas systems where only water is left, this is considered the Bulk Volume
Gas
In liquid rich systems the AR measurement doesnt mean as much
7
Cleaned and Dried: All fluids have been removed including clay bound water so it is

BV Measurement HG immersion

Total immersion 3 7 mm

Weight +/- 0.015 g

BV repeated to within 0.01 cm3

Kg * cm3/Kg = Kg

Need a single piece of rock, does not

have to be cylinder.
Does not work for extremely small
samples or disaggregated cuttings.
Be careful of fractures or vuggy
samples

Grain Volume from Boyles

Law
*Also called Double Cell or Matrix
Cup Method

P1*V1 = P2*V2
Open

Closed

Closed

Boyles Law (Simplifie

VR*P1 = (VC-VG+VR)*P2
VG = VC-VR(P1/P2 -1)

Closed

Open

Closed

VG
9

Grain Volume

Sieve size

10

Crushed vs Plugs
Montney Example
Crushed vs. Plug

11

Effect of cleaning and crushing on porosity

Crushed
Plug

Darat Formation, East Ras Budran, Gulf of Suez, Egypt

12

OU Method for GV and Porosity

Oven Dry for
16 hrs at 100
degC
Bulk Volume
by Hg
Immersion

Weight 1
and Vbb

m= Weight loss
from crushing and
transfer

Weight 2
Crush Sample
& collect in
LPP cell
Vacuum oven
@ 100 degC
for 16 hrs
Boyles Law
LPP for Vgg and
gg of Crushed
Sample

13

LPP = Low Pressure Pycnometer

Dean-Stark Extraction

14

Cut core plug using a fluid similar to the drilling fluids

used during downhole coring (i.e. water for WBM,
kerosene for OBM, nitrogen for frozen, unconsolidated
cores)

Weigh sample immediately and place into extraction

thimble

Sample is extracted for a minimum of 48 hrs at 110 degC

Both water and oil dissolve into solvent (usually

toluene)

Water condenses out of the solvent and is

collected in the water trap as a liquid due to
gravity segregation

Water volume is directly measured from the

graduated burette

Weight changes are also monitored as an

additional check

Oil stays dissolved while the solvent is continually

recycled

Process ends when there is no change in the visible

water level for at least 24 hrs

This is a function of plug sample size ,

permeability, and fluid type

Once water is extracted, the solvents may be cycled

using combinations listed to the bottom left until all of
the oil is removed from the pore system

Water may also be cycled through to dissolve any

salts precipitated during water extraction

Dean-Stark Extraction
Equations
*This is the only direct
measurement of the fluids.
The volumetric (i.e.
reading the water level in
the burette) and
gravimetric methods
should be within 5%

*Volume of oil is never

directly measured. Weight
of oil dissolved in the
solvent is surmised from
equation on the left

15

*Water volume needs to be

corrected for salinity
(equations not shown, see
pg 4-10 of the API RP-40).
Oil volume is calculated
knowing the oil weight and
assumed oil density
* Pore Volume is
determined by any

Example Report

16

Shale core analysis

terminology

A-R Bulk Density = As-received bulk density before crushing

A-R Grain Density = As-received grain density measured after crushing
A-R Oil, Water, and Gas Saturation = As-received saturations after crushing
A-R Gas Filled Porosity = As-received bulk volume gas
A-R Pressure Decay Permeability = As-received permeability after crushing
Dry Bulk Density = Bulk density determined after cleaning and drying
Dry Helium Porosity = Total porosity determined after crushing, cleaning, and
drying.
Dry Pressure Decay Permeability = Permeability after crushing, cleaning, and
drying
As-received measurements suggest what the name says, material that has been
preserved in the field should have retained formation fluids (except gas) +
anything that invaded downhole.
Crushing and sieving through 1/8 mesh is done to ensure proper cleaning
(removal of oil and water) and to allow for helium to invade all connected pores.
For core-log modeling, we are most interested in Dry Helium Porosity, this should
be the closest to a log-based total porosity.
17

Summation of Fluids Porosity and

Saturations
Retort Apparatus

Fluids Released During Retort

Fluids are vaporized in the upper part of

the system (the oven)
Vapor is passed through a screen at the
bottom of the sample holder and then
cooled in a water bath where the
representative fluid condenses and is then
measured via bulk volume.
Certain fluids (free water vs. oil vs. clay
water will evolve and condense at pre-

Summation of Fluids
Equations

For conventional rocks, GB is

measured by injecting with Hg
up to 100 psi
For tight rocks, GB is the asreceived gas-filled porosity
derived from the He GV and BV.
19

Matrix
Gas (Air)
Dead Oil
Free and
Capillary
Bound Water
Clay Bound
Water

MR Shale Porosity CoreLab

Bulk Volume (BV) from Hg
Immersion
Gas-Filled Porosity or Bulk Volume
Gas (BVG) on a plug from Boyles
Law He Grain Volume (GV)
includes fluids.
HPP for IC3
BVG = (BV GV)/BV
Total fluids from NMR (Dead oil +
water)
BVFluids = NMR Porosity (20
MHz, T2)
Total Porosity from Summation of

CoreLab Promo for MR Shale

Blue = GRI
Red = MR Shale

CoreLab MR Sats

Tinni, Dec 2014 OU Shale Meeting

Moveable
Hydrocarb
on

CoreLab uses pre-determined oil/water mixtures to calibrate

T1/T2
Use a calculation algorithm (not public) to match T1/T2 intensity
map to saturations
Require calibrated standards

Typical MR Shale Report

MR Shale Core Analysis
Preliminary Report
Company:
Well:
Formation:

Anadarko
Rocket Unit EB 2H
Eaglebine

File No:
Date:
Analyst(s):

Total
(ambient)
Porosity

Sample

Depth,

Total
Pore Volume,

Number

ft

cm3

1-1H
1-2H
1-3H
1-4H
1-5H
1-6H
1-7H
1-8H
1-9H
1-10H
1-11H
1-12H

7701.00
7710.50
7720.00
7730.00
7740.00
7750.00
7760.00
7770.00
7780.00
7790.00
7800.00
7810.00

0.877
0.886
0.938
0.922
0.856
1.041
0.729
0.672
0.852
0.844
1.011
0.582

9.6
9.1
10.4
10.6
10.6
9.9
11.7
10.3
9.4
8.7
10.8
8.7

Saturation
Oil

Water

Bulk
Density,
g/cm3

% PV
TR
TR
5.2
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
5.5

HOU-130958
11-Nov-2013
TV

82.3
90.0
76.7
77.1
82.3
81.1
83.5
76.8
74.7
89.9
80.1
74.0

2.540
2.560
2.554
2.533
2.536
2.549
2.540
2.557
2.561
2.567
2.551
2.574

Description
Sh,
Sh,
Sh,
Sh,
Sh,
Sh,
Sh,
Sh,
Sh,
Sh,
Sh,
Sh,

gry,
gry,
gry,
gry,
gry,
gry,
gry,
gry,
gry,
gry,
gry,
gry,

calc,
calc,
calc,
calc,
calc,
calc,
calc,
calc,
calc,
calc,
calc,
calc,

slty,
slty,
slty,
slty,
slty,
slty,
slty,
slty,
slty,
slty,
slty,
slty,

tr fluor, pr cut
tr fluor, pr cut
tr fluor, pr cut
tr fluor, pr cut
tr fluor, pr cut
tr fluor, pr cut
lam, tr fluor, pr cut
tr fluor, pr cut
tr fluor, pr cut
lam, tr fluor, pr cut
lam, tr fluor, pr cut
lam, tr fluor, pr cut

Total Porosity (NMR + He) is reported

Pore Volume reported here is from He (GV BV), but they dont report a BV

East TX Eagle Ford Example

2 p.u.

East TX Eagle Ford Example

Total vs. Effective

s this true in tight mudrocks?

API RP40

Native State
Tinni

5%

3%

After 100 degC Drying

Tinni

1.5%

0.2%

Porosity studies
Tinni and Gannaway, 2014 OU Shale Consortium

NMR dodecane porosity (7000psi)(%)

NMR dodecane porosity (7000 psi) (%)

NMR brine porosity (7000psi)(%)

Crushed helium porosity (%)

29

Porosity studies
Tinni and Gannaway, 2014 OU Shale Consortium

NMR dodecane porosity (7000 psi)(%)

NMR dodecane porosity (20000 psi)(%)

NMR brine porosity (7000 psi) (%)

NMR brine porosity (7000 psi) (%)

30

Dielectric Permittivity
Permittivity is:
a physical quantity that
describes how an electric field
affects, and is affected by a
dielectric medium,
and is determined by the ability
of a material to polarize in
response to the field,
and thereby reduce the total electric field inside the
material. Thus, permittivity relates to a material's
ability to transmit (or "permit") an electric field.

Water Filled Porosity from Dielectric

Schmitt et al., 2011

Variable Formation Water

Salinity
Dielectric-Scanner
real time answer

SP 100

GR 150 Oil

Hydrocarbon
1 Micro-Resistivity
1000 50DS Water Porosity 0

Salini
Caliper160 Sw 1
0ty 30 6

1 Deep Resistivity
1000 50 X-plot Porosity
X100

Fresh Water

Dielectric water
filled porosity
overlays with
total porosity
Heavy oil

X200

X300

X400

X500

X600

Water zone

X700

X800

OBM Invasion in Wet Sand

Simpson and Fisher, 2015 (SCA Paper)

BVW (from Dielectric)

<< PHIT from NMR, so
Sw << 1.
Sw Variable

Sw extraction from crushed rock GRI not b

Vertical seal identified by Theloy, 2013

Sw Relatively Constant
BVW (from Dielectric)
and PHIT from NMR are
1:1 (Sw = 1)

Invasion and Core

SaturationsFlushing with OBM
Textbook
Condition
for Sw from
DS

o g

g w

When Connate Water

is Movable
Surface
Reservoi
r Oil +
OBM

Gas Swirr

*Connate
Water not
moveable

Reservoir
Mobile
Total
Swirr
Reservoi Water
rOil

Theloy, 2014
Vertical Barrier between Upper and
Lower Three Forks

Rh - Archie

Rv/Rh
Thin BedDielectric

Simpson et al., 2015 (SPWLA Paper)

Sw more optimistic from

dielectric in the Simpson et
al. SPWLA 2015 compared
to SCA 2014
Dielectric logging reads the
invaded zone, so it should
also detect OBM invasion in
a similar fashion to the core
analysis.
Saturation profile from logs
and core show several
compartments
Birdbear (Nisku) also
appears to be charging (very
weakly) the base of the
Three Forks

)
)
)
)

Fluids Analysis

Retort porosity = (Free Water + Free Oil)/BV or (Free Water + Free Oil + CBW
NMR porosity = MR Shale total liquids
DS porosity = (Total Water Volume from DS + Calculated Oil Volume)/BV
What porosity is used for subsequent saturation calculations?

Porosity Comparison
MR Shale Total Fluids
(Y-axis) vs Total Oil and
Water Recovered from
DS (X-axis)
Not bad.

Retort Fluids (Y-axis) vs

Total Oil and Water
Recovered from DS (Xaxis)
Does the retort fluid
volume include CBW?
Maybe not.

Typical TRA Retort Analysis

Tight Rock Analysis
Noble Energy

Date:

5/30/2014

Well : Noble Energy

Job:

CAS14-0504
% of Effective PV
A-R

Sam ple

Depth,

ID

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

A-R

Bulk

Bulk Volumes

Dry

Grain

Porosity,

Water

Gas

Mobile Oil

Gas Filled

Expandable
Clay

Bound
Hydrocarbon

Saturation,

Saturation,

Saturation,

Porosity,

Water,

Saturation,

Water,

Bound Clay

Density,

Density,

Density,

feet

gm s/cc

gm s/cc

gm s/cc

% of BV

% of PV

% of PV

% of PV

% of BV

% of BV

% of BV

% of BV

10200.0
10236.0
10265.0
10285.0
10323.0
10345.0
10368.0
10430.0
10470.0
10480.0
10524.0
10820.0
10905.0

2.594
2.246
2.482
2.310
2.413
2.553
2.473
2.396
2.503
2.456
2.499
2.560
2.505

2.637
2.276
2.487
2.313
2.426
2.579
2.493
2.412
2.530
2.468
2.507
2.571
2.539

2.682
2.309
2.514
2.344
2.457
2.613
2.522
2.451
2.568
2.505
2.538
2.592
2.564

4.3
4.0
2.1
2.6
2.8
3.2
2.3
3.4
3.5
3.0
2.2
1.8
3.0

54.0
29.1
49.0
38.1
43.8
48.0
25.3
50.8
52.6
53.5
59.8
51.1
36.9

38.1
32.2
11.0
5.4
19.0
31.8
29.0
19.4
29.8
15.9
14.5
22.8
45.2

8.0
38.7
40.0
56.5
37.2
20.2
45.8
29.8
17.6
30.6
25.7
26.1
17.9

1.6
1.3
0.2
0.1
0.5
1.0
0.8
0.7
1.1
0.5
0.3
0.4
1.4

1.1
1.3
1.3
0.9
1.6
1.5
0.7
1.9
1.5
1.8
2.1
0.8
1.7

0.7
14.4
7.6
14.5
9.5
3.5
6.9
8.5
3.6
5.7
4.5
1.4
2.8

3.9
3.2
4.3
2.7
4.2
5.7
2.2
4.3
5.1
5.0
5.1
3.1
4.9

Reported Porosity is an effective porosity not including C

Encana Montney Study

Wood, 2015
Reasonable agreement between FD and crushed GRI considering scale
GRI Sw too low due to desiccation

Encana Montney Study

Wood, 2015

Poor agreement between FD and crushed GRI, FD low in comparison

GRI Sw too low due to desiccation in addition to wrong porosity used for Sw c

Conclusions
Core-Based saturation
measurements are very dependent
on the downhole coring and invasion
conditions
Sw extraction (whether from retort or
DS) is only meaningful in relation to the
unaltered reservoir when OBM is used in
the presence of a non-mobile water
phase throughout the reservoir.
This is not the case the Lwr. Three Forks.
Not sure yet about the Middle Bakken

Conclusions
MR Shale predicts GRI-equivalent total
porosity within 2 p.u.
OU variation gets within 1 p.u.
Meant as a quicklook technique, in my
opinion it works as advertised
Not a precise replacement for GRI

Saturated NMR porosity method (OU, Tinni

et al.) shows more promise.
Commercial labs are not doing this

Conclusions
Total Porosity Is it what we claim in
tight mudstones? NMR evidence
says No
Does it matter? we can get good
correlation between GRI porosity and
log-based NMR.
HPV between consistent porosity
HPV total = HPV effective
systems should be equal: i.e.

Conclusions
Dielectric logging is a resistivity
independent method for obtaining
Sw.
Need to parameterize the matrix
properties and water salinity to get a
proper water-filled porosity
Sw is optimistic when a movable water
zone is flushed with OBM
Log interpretations for Sw with ADT
inconsistent in the Bakken between two
case studies. Need to verify with HESS

Conclusions
Are core-based Sw estimates in the HESS Bakken
optimistic?
General Answer Yes, because of OBM invasion
TGA FID Gas Chromatography from native state Bakken cores will
help in answering reservoir vs. filtrate oil.
Need a vertical profile to define compartments

Bulk volume fluids from DS and MR Shale are reasonable

Need to work more on OU method for As-received NMR + HPP
porosity.
Before and After Imbibition tests

Do the retort bulk volume fluid estimates include CBW? Initial

guess is no, but can verify with HESS

Conclusions
Oil and Water Saturations not clear
in the HESS SCA paper.
Value will be dependent on the base
total porosity used. What did HESS use?
Not worth anything more until we verify
this

Conclusions
Encana Montney Study
Full Diameter vs. GRI crushed total porosity
estimate sometimes agree, and sometimes not.
Function of rock type

Sw from GRI DS extractions historically too

low.
Very low Sw does not correlate to basic resistivity
and BVW concepts
Water loss due to crushing
Where else do we see this?

References
API RP 40, Recommended Practices for Core Analysis, second edition, 1998. Washington,
DC: API.
Schmitt, D.P., et al., 2013, Revisiting Dielectric Logging in Saudi Arabia: Recent
Experiences and Applications in
Development and Exploration Wells. SPE 149131.
Simpson, G.A. and Fishman, N.S., 2015, Unconventional Tight Oil Reservoirs: A Call for
New Standardized Core Analysis Workflows and Research. SCA 2015 Paper 022.
Simpson, G., et al., 2015, Using Advanced Logging Measurements to Develop a Robust
Petrophysical Model for the Bakken Petroleum System
Theloy, C., 2014, Integration of geological and technological factors influencing
production in the Bakken play,
Williston Basin. Ph.D Thesis, Colorado School of
Mines.
https://dspace.library.colostate.edu/handle/11124/233
Wood, J.M., 2015, Crushed Rock Vs. Full Diameter Core Samples for Water Saturation
Determination in a Tight Gas Siltstone Play. SPE Reservoir Engineering and Evaluation.