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 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Seismic Reservoir Characterization of Utica-Point Pleasant Shale with Efforts at Quantitative Interpretation — A Case Study: Part 1.Satinder Chopra, Ritesh Kumar Sharma, Hossein Nemati & James Keay - 2018 - Interpretation: SEG 6 (2):T313-T324.
Seismic Reservoir Characterization of Utica-Point Pleasant Shale with Efforts at Quantitative Interpretation — A Case Study: Part 1.Satinder Chopra, Ritesh Kumar Sharma, Hossein Nemati & James Keay - 2018 - Interpretation 6 (2):T313-T324.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Seismic Reservoir Characterization of Utica-Point Pleasant Shale with Efforts at Fracability Evaluation — Part 2: A Case Study.Ritesh Kumar Sharma, Satinder Chopra, James Keay, Hossein Nemati & Larry Lines - 2018 - Interpretation: SEG 6 (2):T325-T336.
Seismic Reservoir Characterization of Utica-Point Pleasant Shale with Efforts at Fracability Evaluation- a Case Study: Part 2.Ritesh Kumar Sharma, Satinder Chopra, James Keay, Hossein Nemati & Larry Lines - forthcoming - Interpretation:1-36.
Seismic Reservoir Characterization of Utica-Point Pleasant Shale with Efforts at Quantitative Interpretation — A Case Study: Part 1.Satinder Chopra, Ritesh Kumar Sharma, Hossein Nemati & James Keay - 2018 - Interpretation 6 (2):T313-T324.
Seismic Reservoir Characterization of Utica-Point Pleasant Shale with Efforts at Quantitative Interpretation — A Case Study: Part 1.Satinder Chopra, Ritesh Kumar Sharma, Hossein Nemati & James Keay - 2018 - Interpretation: SEG 6 (2):T313-T324.
Brittleness Index Calculation Based on AVO Inversion for CBM Reservoir: A Case Study of Qinshui Basin, China.Haibo Wu, Yan Cheng, Pingsong Zhang, Shouhua Dong & Yaping Huang - forthcoming - Interpretation:1-40.
Characterization of a Shale-Gas Reservoir Based on a Seismic AVO Inversion for VTI Media and Quantitative Seismic Interpretation.Feng Zhang, Lin Wang & Xiang-Yang Li - forthcoming - Interpretation:1-40.
Nanopetrophysical Characterization of the Mancos Shale Formation in the San Juan Basin of Northwestern New Mexico, USA.Qinhong Hu, Richard Kalteyer, Jingyi Wang & Hesham F. El-Sobky - 2019 - Interpretation 7 (4):SJ45-SJ65.
Petrophysical Rock Typing in Unconventional Shale Plays: The Niobrara Formation Case Study.Asm Kamruzzaman, Manika Prasad & Stephen Sonnenberg - 2019 - Interpretation 7 (4):SJ7-SJ22.
Characterization of a Shale-Gas Reservoir Based on a Seismic Amplitude Variation with Offset Inversion for Transverse Isotropy with Vertical Axis of Symmetry Media and Quantitative Seismic Interpretation.Feng Zhang, Lin Wang & Xiang-Yang Li - 2020 - Interpretation 8 (1):SA11-SA23.
Geomechanical Analysis of Microseismicity in an Organic Shale: A West Virginia Marcellus Shale Example.Erich Zorn, Abhash Kumar, William Harbert & Richard Hammack - 2019 - Interpretation 7 (1):T231-T239.
Quantitative Prediction of Total Organic Carbon Content in Shale-Gas Reservoirs Using Seismic Data: A Case Study From the Lower Silurian Longmaxi Formation in the Chang Ning Gas Field of the Sichuan Basin, China.Sheng Chen, Wenzhi Zhao, Qingcai Zeng, Qing Yang, Pei He, Shaohua Gai & Yu Deng - 2018 - Interpretation: SEG 6 (4):SN153-SN168.
Seismic Petrophysics Workflow Applied to Delaware Basin.Yoryenys Del Moro, Venkatesh Anantharamu, Lev Vernik, Alfonso Quaglia & Eduardo Carrillo - 2020 - Interpretation 8 (2):T349-T363.
High-Quality Marine Shale Reservoir Prediction in the Lower Silurian Longmaxi Formation, Sichuan Basin, China.Shang Xu, Fang Hao, Yuanyin Zhang & Qiyang Gou - 2020 - Interpretation 8 (2):T453-T463.
Comparative Analysis of Shale Reservoir Characteristics in the Wufeng-Longmaxi and Niutitang Formations: A Case Study of Wells JY1 and TX1 in the Southeastern Sichuan Basin and its Neighboring Areas, Southwestern China. [REVIEW]Ruyue Wang, Zongquan Hu, Chuanxiang Sun, Zhongbao Liu, Chenchen Zhang, Bo Gao, Wei Du, Jianhua Zhao & Wenhao Tang - 2018 - Interpretation: SEG 6 (4):SN31-SN45.
Influencing Factor Analysis of the Elastic Properties of Shale with Rock-Physical Model Including Pressure Effects.Zhaoyun Zong, Man Jiang & Miaomiao Xu - 2020 - Interpretation 8 (3):T515-T524.
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 )
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.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.