Interpretation 8 (3):SM1-SM14 (2020)

Abstract
Multiclient 3D seismic data were acquired in 2015 in eastern Ohio for reservoir characterization of the Utica Shale consisting of the Utica and Point Pleasant Formations. I attained accurate, high-fidelity acoustic impedance, shear impedance, density, and [Formula: see text], from elastic inversion. These accurate inversion results allow consistent calculation of reservoir and geomechanical properties of the Utica Shale. I found density critically important affecting the accuracy of other reservoir and geomechanical properties. More than a dozen properties in geologic, geomechanical, and reservoir categories were acquired from logs, cores, and seismic inversion, for this integrated reservoir characterization study. These properties include buried depth, formation thickness, mineralogy, density, Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, brittleness, total organic carbon, porosity, water saturation, permeability, clay content, and natural fractures. A ternary diagram of core samples from 18 wells demonstrates that the Point Pleasant is dominant with calcite, whereas the Utica mainly contains clay. Inverted density clearly divides Point Pleasant as low density from the overlying Utica. Calculated reservoir properties undoubtedly delineate the traditional Utica Shale as two distinctive formations. I calculated that the Utica Formation contains 1%–2% TOC, 3.5%–4.8% porosity, 10%–24% water saturation, and 40%–58% clay content, whereas Point Pleasant contains 3%–4.5% TOC, 5%–9% porosity, 2%–10% water saturation, and 15%–35% clay content. The PR and brittleness clearly separate Point Pleasant from the overlying Utica, with a lower PR and a higher brittleness index in Point Pleasant than in Utica. The higher brittleness in Point Pleasant makes it easier to frac, leading to enhanced permeability. Both formations exhibit spatial variations of reservoir and geomechanical properties. Nevertheless, the underlying Point Pleasant is obviously better than the Utica Shale with favorable reservoir and geomechanical properties for optimal development and production, although Utica is thicker and shallower. The central and southeastern portions of Point Pleasant have the sweetest reservoirs.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1190/int-2019-0163.1
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,130
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-04-22

Total views
1 ( #1,545,750 of 2,506,499 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,791 of 2,506,499 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes